Napier, MscNewsWire, Tuesday 21 June 2016 - The manager of a medium sized manufacturing distributor in the Wellington region was asked to hire a male management graduate. The reason given was that the man in his very early 20s needed practical experience.

The manager interviewed the candidate and rejected him on grounds of the candidate’s attitude. The candidate radiated an air of entitlement and the manager judged him to be work-shy on top of this.

Shortly after this the manager was approached by a board member and asked to re-consider his decision. He was told that the candidate in fact was the son of an important customer.

The man was duly hired and installed in an office on the company’s management row adjacent to the main factory. Anxious to put the new employee in his place the manager put him on the same contract as other trainees. There would be no favouritism.

Several months after this some barrels spilled off a truck loaded with polymers. At least one barrel burst right outside the management row.

It looked as if it would rain which would have turned an inconvenience into something more serious. Seeing the danger the manager urged all staff to help in sweeping up the polymers. The graduate employee demurred. This was not his job, he claimed, and did so in the hearing of others.

At the end of his patience with the somewhat lordly and unwanted employee the manager now in no uncertain terms told the man to start sweeping.

A few days after this event, the real problem emerged. The new employee now began a legal action against the firm on the grounds that contrary to the agreement he had entered into, he, the plaintiff, had been compelled to do factory work and work that had placed him in personal danger.

On the face of, there was a case especially as the man was able to produce witnesses who had heard the manager commanding him to do the sweeping of the potentially dangerous polymer. He had not been issued with any safety clothing, boots. And so on.

During the following months the manager had scant time for managing the factory because his primary concern was coping with the legal action.

The incident reminds us of a number of factors not least of which was that that regardless of fringe concerns the board should have trusted the instinct, and the original decision, of its factory manager.

What would you have done?  Responses will be featured in our next workplace case history.

From the MSCNewsWire reporters' deskThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.