New "violence in the workplace" policy

[wm3banners]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Ohio

Hello, not sure this the correct forum for this, but it seemed the closest match.

My manufacturing company has just issued a new 'violence in the workplace' policy that they went over in a mandatory meeting. I can see a need for such policy for the safety and well being of the employees and staff, and agree with most of the policy, as I think most of the 800 or so other employees will agree. However, there is one aspect of the policy that everyone I've talked to disagrees with and it's the last article of the policly and the last thing they brought up at the meeting. This article states:

Under "Definitions" (of workplace violence)

Section B: Workplace violence includes, but is not limited to, verbal threats, physical assualts, violent acts, attempts at intimidation, sabotage, destruction of property, menacing gestures, possession of weapons within workplace name, stalking, and other hostile, aggressive, injurious, or destructive actions either on or off workplace name property which compromises work relations.

The part I (and many others) have trouble with, is number one; it seems very vague so they can determine any number of things to be "violent in nature" and number two, and most importantly, the BOLD part that states that if we do any of these things with a fellow employee outside of the plant (the example given by the HR rep. was in a bar) then we are subject to disciplinary actions, up to and including termination, once we return to work (if it's reported or witnessed). Is this acceptable? Would this hold up in court if a party was fired for such action off company property? I can't believe this wouldn't be wrongful termination.

Does anyone have a view on this, is it legal and/or appropriate for a company to have this much say in a person's own life outside of the boundries of the workplace? It just seems absurb that a company would try to inject themselves this far into an employees out-of-the-workplace life!


Kevin

 

[Katy W.]

Any company has the right to hire and fire any employee it wants for the reason it wants, unless the employee(s) have an employment contract that prohibits the employer's actions, or 2) the employer is discriminating against the employee(s) because they are members of a protected class or have engaged in protected activity.

Fighting in bars is not a protected activity. Employees who like to fight in bars are not members of a protected class. Yes, they can legally fire you for fighting outside of work. Even if it were not in the handbook, they can fire you for fighting of outside work.

I'm just wondering why you and your multitude of co-workers who are also upset about this think they will find it such a stretch to comply with this policy?

 

[wm3banners]

"I'm just wondering why you and your multitude of co-workers who are also upset about this think they will find it such a stretch to comply with this policy?"

I personally don't plan on not complying with the policy, and I wouldn't think anyone else would intentionally get into a fight just to buck the system. I don't even do the bar scene myself. It just seems to me, and I'm sure to the others who have sounded off about this, that the company is invading our private lives outside the boundries of the workplace. I could understand this policy if the fight, or any other infraction, were to take place at a company sponsored function, but not somewhere where the company has no jurisdiction, especially if the altercation doesn't overflow into the workplace. If the situation were to continue in the workplace, then yes, fine, disciplinary action is in order, but if I were to get into altercation with, say a good friend, because I had one to many beers, and the next day all is fine between us, but another employee saw us fight and reported it, then no, it's none of the company's business.

I do understand that, without a union or contract, the company can hire and fire as they please, that's a fact of factory life, but to try and run our lives outside the boundries of the workplace doesn't seem right to me.

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Ohio

Hello, not sure this the correct forum for this, but it seemed the closest match.

My manufacturing company has just issued a new 'violence in the workplace' policy that they went over in a mandatory meeting. I can see a need for such policy for the safety and well being of the employees and staff, and agree with most of the policy, as I think most of the 800 or so other employees will agree. However, there is one aspect of the policy that everyone I've talked to disagrees with and it's the last article of the policly and the last thing they brought up at the meeting. This article states:

Under "Definitions" (of workplace violence)

Section B: Workplace violence includes, but is not limited to, verbal threats, physical assualts, violent acts, attempts at intimidation, sabotage, destruction of property, menacing gestures, possession of weapons within workplace name, stalking, and other hostile, aggressive, injurious, or destructive actions either on or off workplace name property which compromises work relations.

The part I (and many others) have trouble with, is number one; it seems very vague so they can determine any number of things to be "violent in nature" and number two, and most importantly, the BOLD part that states that if we do any of these things with a fellow employee outside of the plant (the example given by the HR rep. was in a bar) then we are subject to disciplinary actions, up to and including termination, once we return to work (if it's reported or witnessed). Is this acceptable? Would this hold up in court if a party was fired for such action off company property? I can't believe this wouldn't be wrongful termination.

Does anyone have a view on this, is it legal and/or appropriate for a company to have this much say in a person's own life outside of the boundries of the workplace? It just seems absurb that a company would try to inject themselves this far into an employees out-of-the-workplace life!


Kevin

**A: I don't see a problem.

 

[cbg]

They aren't trying to run your life outside the workplace. But the kind of altercations described, regardless of whether they TAKE PLACE on or off work premises, can definitely affect the way the employees interact with each other WHILE AT WORK, which has a direct affect on the employer and his business.