 |
A decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa shows how far some former employees will reach to stretch their termination into some legal claim against their employer. More important, though, it underscores the importance that training and supervisor/manager competence can play in protecting employers from spurious legal claims.
Background
Joshua Hoffman began working for Americold Logistics, LLC, in Cedar Rapids as a forklift operator on June 18, 2012. Before working for Americold, he worked as a forklift operator for other companies. Americold provides temperature-controlled warehousing and logistics to the food industry domestically in the United States and internationally.
Americold’s Cedar Rapids facility is attached to a food production plant operated by H.J. Heinz Co. At the facility, Americold stores and ships refrigerated products, including boxes of bulk soup, which come into the facility by way of a conveyor from Heinz.
Hoffman’s role as a forklift operator required him to receive and check in pallets after they came in from Heinz off the production line. He was also required to “pick” product via forklift, stage the product, load trucks, and perform other tasks. The forklifts were battery-operated, and the large batteries required regular charging.
Americold’s work rules policy provided that employees may receive one or more points, at their supervisor’s discretion, for policy violations or disciplinary incidents that result in oral or written counseling. Under the same policy, employees who receive three points are subject to a suspension, and employees who receive four points are subject to termination.
First incident
In October 2012, Americold issued Hoffman counseling because he failed to receive and check in a pallet that arrived from Heinz while he worked production the month before. Consistent with the Americold policy, the counseling notified Hoffman that he had received one point and that four points would result in termination.
You know your managers could do a better job if they were trained—and now BLR® offers you an easy and affordable way to get that done—with our TrainingToday® 24/7 online Leadership Library. Get more information.
Accident and investigation
On November 7, 2012, Hoffman tried to change his forklift battery. He had been trained to disconnect the battery by pulling on the plug connections rather than pulling on the cables because the latter was a safety violation.
While changing the battery, Hoffman saw a bright blue flash and felt sparks flying into his eyes. After he reported the incident to his supervisor and washed his eyes out, he still needed medical attention. At the hospital, he was treated for a bruised cornea, diagnosed with “welder’s burn,” and told not to work the remainder of the day. Conflicting statements from Hoffman at the time of the incident and after the incident resulted in an investigation, during which his supervisor and others consulted with an outside repair technician. The team determined the accident was caused by Hoffman pulling on the cables of the battery rather than the connectors. Hoffman himself admitted that if one were to pull the cables instead of the connectors, it might cause a similar reaction to what occurred at the time he was burned.
Second counseling
After determining that Hoffman had failed to unplug the battery properly, an Americold representative filled out a form titled “Second Counseling,” giving Hoffman a second point under the work rules policy. Because he was on a leave of absence when the second counseling was drafted, he didn’t receive notice of it until he returned to work on November 29, 2012.
Third and fourth counseling
On November 8, 2012, while Hoffman was out, Americold’s inventory analyst was reconciling the previous day’s production receiving and noticed that between 6:55 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., 10 pallets had been received using the wrong date. Each forklift had an RF scanning unit, and employees logged into the RF unit at the outset of their shifts.
The analyst determined that an employee using Hoffman’s identification number had made the errors. The errors were important because Americold needed to be able to track products by production date in the event of a product recall.
Because of the incorrect dating, the analyst had to “reverse receipt” the pallet. He then noticed that Hoffman had failed to perform a temperature check on the cartons in the pallet, which violated Americold’s policy.
As a result of the errors, Americold imposed an additional two points against Hoffman under the disciplinary policy, which brought his total to four points. He received notice of the additional points on November 29, 2012, when he returned to work. He didn’t dispute the violations occurred, but he disputed that he was the one who made the errors because he was “pretty sure” he had been on break at the time.
After his eye injury, Hoffman applied for and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits in the amount of $600, which accounted for the time he missed from November 7 to November 29. No one prevented him from getting the benefits or complained about them.
Termination
When Hoffman returned on November 29, he attended a brief safety meeting, after which he met with his supervisor and others. At the meeting, one of the individuals stated that he was being disciplined for the events of November 7 and that he was to be terminated.
While Hoffman claims he tried to explain the incident with the battery cables, he didn’t offer an explanation for the third and fourth violations involving the failure to properly date the pallets and take the temperature of the products in the carton.
Erik S. Fisk is a partner at Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C. and an editor of Iowa Employment Law Letter. He can be reached at fisk@whitfieldlaw.com.
Worried about ever getting your managers and supervisors trained to be effective leaders? It isn’t easy to fit it in—schedulewise or budgetwise—but now there’s BLR’s Leadership Library for Managers and Supervisors. Train all your people, at their convenience, 24/7, for one standard fee. Get more information.
In tomorrow’s Advisor, we’ll find out what happened when this employee sued his employer.