Assessment

Question 1

Oil Service Company has an office in a remote area in North Dakota. During an uncharacteristically heavy snow, three employees in the office of Oil Service Company called the manager of Oil Service Company to say that they did not think that they could get to work because of the heavy snow. The manager told each of those employees that he did not want them driving to work if they thought that it was too dangerous, but that since there was an important contract that had to be finished, and if they wanted, he (the manager) would come to their houses, pick them up, and bring them to work. Two of the three employees who called agreed to have the manager come to their houses and bring them to the office. One of those employees slipped on the ice in front of her house as she was coming down the front steps to the manager's car and was injured.

Is this employee entitled to workers' compensation for this injury? Why, or why not?

Question 2

Big Jim Company sponsored a picnic for employees and purchased a propane grill equipped with a standard-sized propane tank for the picnic. To make sure there was enough propane for all the cooking that was to be done at the picnic, the employer also purchased a larger propane tank to replace the smaller propane tank that came with the grill. Though the larger propane tank contained a label warning that it should not be used with grills designed for smaller tanks, the employer was able to connect the larger tank to the grill. When the grill was turned on, two employees who had volunteered to do the cooking determined that the gas flow was not adequate to cook the meat, so they tried to adjust the larger propane tank and the valve connecting it to the grill to increase the flow of propane. After those adjustments were made, propane began to leak from the larger tank and caused an explosion which injured both of the employees who had volunteered to do the cooking.

Did the employer violate any of the duties imposed on it by OSHA? If not, why not. If so, what duties were violated?

Question 3

Construction workers were hired on an hourly basis to perform work being done by AC Contracting in a shipyard that was owned by BAE Company. Security procedures instituted by BAE Company required that the construction workers employed by AC Contracting park their cars outside of the shipyard and pass through a security gate to enter the shipyard. Once the construction workers employed by AC Contracting passed through the BAE Company security gate, they were required to ride on a bus to the construction site on a remote part of the shipyard. The security process and ride to the construction site took about one half hour each way every day, but during that time, construction workers employed by AC Contracting were not required to do any work other than carry their personal safety equipment. The construction workers claim that they should be paid from the time they begin the security check-in procedure until the time they complete the security check-out procedure.

Are these workers entitled to be paid for the time required to check in and out of the security gate and to ride to and from the construction site? If not, why not? If so, what law applies?

Question 4

During a campaign to organize a union at Total Manufacturing Co., two employees of Total asked other employees in the break room at Total if they would sign cards indicating their support of the union. The Vice President for Human Resources for Total was in the break room at the time and overheard the conversation about signing cards to support the union. That Vice President said to the employees who had been asked to sign the cards supporting the union that they should know the facts before they signed the cards, that in signing the cards, if the union won the election, they were giving up their right to decide later if they wanted to join the union and that they would be required to pay union dues if the union won the election. The Vice President also told the employees that they would be obligated to be union members and pay union dues even if the union was not able to improve their pay or benefits through negotiations with Total.

Were the Vice President's statements an unlawful interference with the union organizing process? If so, what law applies?