Terminated for policy violation, but others do it

[lokiblueeyes]

So as a machine technician, was terminated for safety violation, one strike and your out kind of thing, very strict. My violation pertains to a machine lock-out situation, where i didn't lock-out before servicing briefly...and i mean brief as in less then 30 seconds. I've was at this company for 18 years. My beef, is that affected employees(machine operators) are allowed to enter a machine on a particular job without any type of lock-out, while being exposed to 3 hazardous energies. The only thing the company says allows these operators to do so, is a pressure mat that de-energizes the machine gate relay. The way i understand OSHA policy and the company policy...this machine should be locked out every time. So what's the difference?

 

[Shadowbunny]

So as a machine technician, was terminated for safety violation, one strike and your out kind of thing, very strict. My violation pertains to a machine lock-out situation, where i didn't lock-out before servicing briefly...and i mean brief as in less then 30 seconds. I've was at this company for 18 years. My beef, is that affected employees(machine operators) are allowed to enter a machine on a particular job without any type of lock-out, while being exposed to 3 hazardous energies. The only thing the company says allows these operators to do so, is a pressure mat that de-energizes the machine gate relay. The way i understand OSHA policy and the company policy...this machine should be locked out every time. So what's the difference?

What state is this in, lokiblueeyes? And are you a member of a union?

 

[lokiblueeyes]

What state is this in, lokiblueeyes? And are you a member of a union?

This is in Ohio, a "right to work" state. No, its a non-union company.

 

[doucar]

Because companies are not legally obligated to follow their employee handbook and can fire or not fire someone at their choosing, except for a protected characteristic, such as race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, etc.

 

[xylene]

Your skilled occupation is in demand, you'll be ok even though it sucks.

Report your concerns about the lock out fail to OSHA.

 

[commentator]

When you are filing for unemployment insurance while looking for another job, that you were terminated for violation of a company policy would be investigated and a decision made about whether you were aware of the policy, and whether you knew that you very likely could be terminated for doing what you did. One defense that is sometimes used is that if everyone around you was doing it, without being fired for it, and especially if your supervisors were aware that other employees were violating the company policy, you might possibly have a better chance of being adjudicated to have been put "out of work through no fault of your own." Of course that is the requirement for receiving unemployment insurance.

But that's only in regard to unemployment insurance. Otherwise, as long as they do not terminate you for an illegal reason, as in due to your race, creed, age, national origins, etc. in regard to EEOC, or for refusing to work under dangerous conditions (related to OSHA laws) they can pretty much terminate you legally for anything they want to. Just because they didn't terminate everyone else who was doing it doesn't mean they can't make a big example of you.

But file for unemployment benefits, and you can hash it out with the agency and your employer as to whether you had knowledge of the policy and whether you had awareness that this could lead to your termination.

 

[justalayman]

This is in Ohio, a "right to work" state. No, its a non-union company.

I suspect you mean employment at will state. Right to work is where you can’t be required to join a union to work where there is a union


Anyway;

As a tech you should know the dangers of not locking out the energy sources. Whether somebody else doesn’t lock out doesn’t excuse your error. You still didn’t lock out as required.

30 seconds is irrelevent. You could get injured at any time.
And of course you know the lock out system is for your safety.

Your argument about the others not locking you is odd. It suggests you want the employer to allow you to work unsafely. Just because others do doesn’t mean you should. It doesn’t make the company wrong for disciplining you. It makes them wrong for not dealing with the other employees to correct their behaviors. That doesn’t mean you should get your job back. It means the others should be punished too.

 

[lokiblueeyes]

I suspect you mean employment at will state. Right to work is where you can’t be required to join a union to work where there is a union


Anyway;

As a tech you should know the dangers of not locking out the energy sources. Whether somebody else doesn’t lock out doesn’t excuse your error. You still didn’t lock out as required.

30 seconds is irrelevent. You could get injured at any time.
And of course you know the lock out system is for your safety.

Your argument about the others not locking you is odd. It suggests you want the employer to allow you to work unsafely. Just because others do doesn’t mean you should. It doesn’t make the company wrong for disciplining you. It makes them wrong for not dealing with the other employees to correct their behaviors. That doesn’t mean you should get your job back. It means the others should be punished too.[/QUO

 

[lokiblueeyes]

Right, and right. Employment at will, and yes i do acknowledge that i was in the wrong, i accept this, i don't expect my job back. It's my feeling that when the head safety officer of the corporation enacted this strict policy recently, that our branch company knowingly withheld the fact that there were cases where this policy was going to be violated repeatedly in a normal production setting, or they didn't realize that was going to be that case.. that's kinda how management rolled there.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Right, and right. Employment at will, and yes i do acknowledge that i was in the wrong, i accept this, i don't expect my job back. It's my feeling that when the head safety officer of the corporation enacted this strict policy recently, that our branch company knowingly withheld the fact that there were cases where this policy was going to be violated repeatedly in a normal production setting, or they didn't realize that was going to be that case.. that's kinda how management rolled there.

If you don't expect your job back, I don't understand what it is you're trying to accomplish, legally. Can you clarify?

 

[cbg]

I suspect that your employer had finally had enough and decided to draw a line in the sand. "Okay, next guy who does this is fired".

But even if that's not the case, unless you have a valid and supportable reason to believe that you were fired when others weren't, BECAUSE of your race, religion, national origin etc., it's perfectly legal to fire one person for the same offense others were not fired for.