Главная страница «Первого сентября»Главная страница журнала «Английский язык»Содержание №28/2002

READ & DISCUSS

THE CASE OF THE WARM MILK

BACKGROUND

Pure Dairy Company, Incorporated, is a milk production plant. It purchases raw milk from farmers and processes the milk for sale to retail grocery stores and consumers. The plant employs 35 people, including production workers, truck drivers, clerical staff, sales staff and management. The production workers report to work at 7:00 a.m. and quit at 3:00 p.m.

Joe Leizert is a production worker who was hired exactly two years ago. Leizert is 47 years old and previously worked in a coal mine that closed causing Leizert to lose his job there. When he first started to work at Pure Dairy Company, Leizert was classified as a “loader”. In that job, he was assigned to remove cases of milk bottles from the end of a conveyer line and stack them into a large refrigerator where the milk was stored until it was later delivered to stores and other customers. He also helped clean and load trucks for delivery of the milk.

Leizert worked as a loader for about nine months. At that time, 15 months ago, after another Employee retired, Leizert was Promoted to the position “pasteurizer”. The wage rate for pasteurizer is higher than the loader job. The primary duties of the pasteurizer job are to clean and sanitize pasteurizing equipment; run raw milk from a large storage vat into the pasteurizing equipment; monitor the temperature and pressure of the equipment as the milk is pasteurized; and then run the milk out of the pasteurizer and into the bottling equipment. The job requires careful attention at times and involves opening and closing the proper valves to assure that the milk flows properly in the processing equipment. In addition, the pasteurizer has secondary duties which include mixing ingredients for chocolate milk, separating the cream from milk to leave skimmed milk, and running the chocolate milk, cream, and skimmed milk into bottling equipment. He was also responsible for keeping the area where he works clean.

For the first three months on the new job, the plant manager, John Moro, found that Leizert performed all duties properly. Moro came to the pasteurizing area at least four or five times per day to give Leizert instructions and explain how he should perform his job. Moro then went on vacation for two weeks. When he returned from vacation, the Assistant Plant Manager, Maria Galinsky, reported to Moro that while he was gone, Leizert had made two serious errors. First, he mistakenly bottled skimmed milk in bottles marked for whole milk. His second error was that he failed to properly clean the chocolate mix out of the bottling equipment after a chocolate milk run. The result was that the next batch of whole milk all looked slightly brown. In both cases, all the milk had to be discarded and could not be sold. This represented a significant loss to the Company.

Moro called Leizert into his office and asked him how these mistakes had happened. Leizert explained that he had been in a hurry to get the skimmed milk bottled and “forgot” to change the type of bottle before he ran the skimmed milk into the bottler. With regard to the chocolate milk, as he was about to clean the equipment, he was called by Galinsky and told to help load a truck. When he returned to his regular job, he simply “forgot” that he had not cleaned the equipment and started to process the next batch of whole milk. Moro warned Leizert that he would have to pay closer attention to his work. All of this happened about a year ago.

Three months passed with no problem. Then about nine months ago, Moro discovered a shortage of about 700 liters of milk. He reviewed the records again and determined that the shortage had occurred two days earlier and he decided to investigate. Moro asked several employees about the shortage and finally, when he asked Joe Leizert if he knew anything, Leizert admitted that he had failed to close one of the valves on the pasteurizer as raw milk was coming in. This allowed part of the load of milk to be spilled out onto the floor. It went down a drain and was lost.

His explanation was that he was interrupted as he was performing his normal duties. Another employee asked him to help unload some new milk cases from a truck. When he returned to his normal duties, he simply “forgot” to close the valve before running the raw milk. Moro decided to give Leizert a stern warning and to suspend him for one day without pay as a penalty for his carelessness.

For about seven months, there were no incidents. Then about two months ago, Leizert was in trouble again. The plant has a large heated garage where its delivery trucks are stored and washed. Employees are allowed to bring their personal cars into the garage to wash them, but they are permitted to do this after their regular working shift is completed at 3:00 p.m. One afternoon about two months ago, at 2:45 p.m., Moro walked through the plant and noticed that Leizert was not at his work station. In addition, the floor area was quite dirty. As Moro came into the garage, he found Leizert washing his (Leizert’s) car.

Leizert explained that he had properly cleaned all his equipment, and that he decided to wait until the next morning to clean the floor. Besides, no one had ever told him the floor needed to be cleaned every day. Leizert said that his wife had a doctor’s appointment at 3:30 p.m. that day, so that he could not wait until after normal working hours to wash his car. If he had, his wife would be late to the doctor.

Moro was very angry with Leizert and seriously considered terminating Leizert at that time. Moro informed the union shop steward, Michael Eller, that he intended to fire Leizert. Eller told Moro that the union would file a grievance to protest the termination because Eller believed the rules about cleaning the floor in the afternoon were not clear, that Leizert had not been told exactly what was expected of him, and most important, that other employees had occasionally washed their cars before 3:00 p.m.

Mr. Eller also told Moro that the Union was displeased at the way the Company was treating Mr. Leizert. Management seemed to be picking on Leizert, maybe because he was an older employee. In addition, the Company had not given Leizert proper instruction in the operations or told him what was expected. The Company seemed to be making up the rules as they went along.

After this discussion, Moro decided that he would impose another suspension on Leizert – 5 days off without pay – and give him one more chance. After the suspension, Eller told Moro that the union did not think the suspension was fair either and that Leizert also thought Moro was “picking on him” – treating him in a discriminatory way – since other employees had also washed their cars before 3:00 p.m. Eller gave notice to Moro that the union would not stand by and let him treat Leizert unfairly.

LAST INCIDENT

Last Wednesday, Mr. Moro was reviewing the “cold milk chart” for the pasturing machine operated by Mr. Leizert. This chart is required by the government to record the temperature of the milk in the pasteurizer while it is being heated for pasteurization, and afterward as it is cooled for storage. The temperature is recorded automatically. After the milk is heated to 55 degrees Centigrade and held at that temperature for one minute. Then it must be cooled immediately to 2 degrees Centigrade and kept at that temperature until it is bottled.

Moro noticed that on Tuesday, the pasteurizing temperature had been attained and the milk was then cooled to 2 degrees, but almost immediately, the temperature rose to nearly 15 degrees where it stayed for nearly two hours before it was cooled to 2 degrees again. As noted earlier, an important part of Mr. Leizert’s job is to monitor the equipment, yet Leizert had reported nothing wrong during this period.

On Thursday, Moro called Leizert into his office along with Mr. Eller. He asked Leizert to explain what had happened. Leizert said that he had been having a problem with the circuit breaker for the cooler compressor circuit. The breaker frequently popped out for no apparent reason. This, in turn, shut off the electricity for the compressor. Leizert had reported the problem to the plant electrician, but the electrician had done nothing about the problem. Leizert did not tell anyone else because he did not want to get the electrician into trouble.

On Wednesday, the day of the incident, Leizert had been called into the garage by one of his co-workers to help wash out some trucks. There used to be two employees in the garage to work on the trucks, but the Company had terminated one of these workers three weeks ago in order to save money. Leizert said he had come back to his work station several times during the afternoon, but had not noticed that anything was wrong.

After listening to Leizert’s explanation, Moro decided that Leizert should be terminated. He based his decision on the fact that the Pasteurizer duties are Leizert’s primary responsibility. Even if he was called away for a time to help, he should have checked back more regularly and caught the problem of the refrigeration failure.

Moreover, Leizert had consistently been inattentive to his work and a dairy is particularly vulnerable because it produces a product that people, including especially children, consume. Finally the mistakes caused by Leizert had already cost the Company a great deal of money.

Mr. Eller, for the union, did not accept this decision. He decided that the matter would be appealed on the following grounds: First, Leizert had not been properly trained. There had never been any formal training, nor was there a written list of procedures or rules for the job. Second, Leizert should not be blamed for the Company’s faulty equipment. He had reported the circuit breaker problem to the proper person, but it had not been repaired. Third, Leizert was actually trying to help the Company by working in the garage washing trucks which was not his normal job duty. Finally, the Company was treating Leizert in a discriminatory fashion by picking on him.

The Union and the Company have an agreement that whenever there is a dispute that cannot be resolved, they will submit that dispute to an impartial arbitrator. The arbitrator must hear all the evidence and argument, then he or she must decide the matter. Whatever the arbitrator decides will be final and binding on the parties.

PASTEURIZER JOB DESCRIPTION

Work Shift: 7 a.m. – 3 p.m. Hourly Rate: $9.88

Duties and Responsibilities

1. Work station: Pasteurizing Room. Main Building.
2. Read and be completely familiar with the state regulations concerning milk sanitation: TITLE 7 AGRICULTURE PART III: Bureau of Foods and Chemistry; Chapter 59. Milk Sanitation and Standards (August 7, 1982). They are posted in the work station.
3. Every morning, clean and sanitize the pasteurizing tank and all storage/mixing tanks before any product is run in from the holding tanks.
4. Assist the Bottler Operator to clean and sanitize the bottling machine.
5. Run raw milk from holding tanks to the pasteurizer; operate the pasteurizer according to instructions provided by management and in accordance with the state regulations; monitor the temperature and pressure of the equipment as the milk is being pasteurized; and then run the milk out of the pasteurizing tank into the storage/mixing tanks or into the bottling equipment.
6. Check to see that the Bottler Operator has placed the proper containers in the bottling machine before each bottling run.
7. Mix chocolate milk ingredients for chocolate milk runs.
8. Run product into containers in the bottling equipment.
9. Keep work station, including floors, clean and sanitary.
10. Other duties as assigned.

Job Requirements

Applicant must be able to read and follow written instructions. Applicant must have a working knowledge of all equipment in the pasteurizing room.

VOCABULARY:

he was assigned ему было поручено
stack складывать
vat бак
valves клапаны
skimmed milk обезжиренное молоко
batch of whole milk партия цельного молока
discarded выброшены
stern строгое
shortage недостача
drain дренажная труба
suspend временно отстранить
seriously considered terminating решил выгнать
would file a grievance подаст желаемое
to be picking придирается
binding обязательный

SUGGESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION THE ARBITRATOR’S HEARING IN THE CASE

During the class four volunteers will be needed to play the roles of Leizert and Eller on the Union side, and Moro and Galinsky on the Company side. The rest of the class will be the arbitrators.

1. First, Moro and Galinsky will present their reasons for terminating Leizert. This must be based on the facts given in the scenario above. After they present their story, Mr. Eller will be allowed to question them, if he wants.
2. Then, Eller and Leizert will be able to argue why Leizert should not be fired. Moro or Galinsky (not both) will be able to question them, if they wish.
3. Finally, after all the arguments are made, each individual in the class will be asked to decide the case. The arbitrators will be asked to write down the three most important facts or arguments for your decision and hand them in.

Compiled by Vladimir Pavlov,
The Moscow Institute of Business Administration