Two employees at a Whirlpool plant in Marion, Ohio, were ordered to perform main

Question

Two employees at a Whirlpool plant in Marion, Ohio, were ordered to perform maintenance work on overhead conveyers that carried components for the assembly of household appliances. The two employees, Virgil Deemer and Thomas Cornwell, believed the work to be unsafe and refused to perform the work. Although a screen had been constructed underneath the conveyors, several employees had fallen through the screen, one to his death. Deemer and Cornwell had expressed their concerns to their supervisor and the plant safety director, and Deemer had consulted with the a local OSHA representative. Because of the refusal to perform the work, the two employees lost six hours wages after being ordered to punch out, and written reprimands were placed in their personnel files. 1. Were Deemer and Cornwell justified in their actions? Do they have a right to refuse to do the work that they were ordered to do? What is the basis and justification for such a refusal?

Explanation / Answer

Deemer and Cornwell refused to perform the maintenance work ordered to them, on the overhead conveyers.

Deemer and Cornwell were justified in their actions, and they had the right to refuse to work as they were ordered to do. Under OSHA regulations, employees have the right under certain circumstance, to choose not to perform any task which can result in fatal injuries of death.

The justification for their refusal was based on past incidents, where a few employees have fallen through the screen installed for their safety, and one of them even died from the fall.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.