Cabinet Company Case Study
Neglect of Duty and Obligations
Under US law, an employee who fails to perform his or her duties may be punished for negligence, depending on the situation. For instance, in the state of California, “An individual’s failure to perform properly or neglect of duty is willful and misconduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or deliberately fails to perform, or performs in a grossly negligent manner, or repeatedly performs negligently after prior warning or reprimand and in substantial disregard of the employer’s interests.” An employee’s neglect of duty may be classified as ordinary neglect or gross negligence. On the one hand, ordinary negligence usually consists of minor negligence that does not substantially damage the organization. On the other hand, gross negligence usually leads to enormous damages to the employer and the entire organization.
In the case of Cabinet Co, Frank’s failure to inspect the new shipment in time because the designated storage facility was under renovation. Upon the late inspection, it discovered that the majority of the casts received are defective and unusable. As a result, Cabinet Co had to experience huge losses in increased costs and the default of several contracts. As the receiving dock supervisor, Frank’s primary duty is to supervise the inspection and stocking of components and materials used in the cabinets’ manufacture as they are received and as they leave the stores. He is also supposed to notify the accounting department so that the invoices can be paid on time. On this particular shipment, Frank performed only one of his obligation leading to huge consequences.
After a probe to investigate whether Frank broke the employee’s code of conduct is launched, Frank needs to be given a chance to defend himself. Frank is likely to argue that his failure to inspect that shipment was reasonable and understandable, considering that the designated store was under renovation. Frank may also seek some lenience from the probing team since he has always performed his duties with due diligence, and he has never grossly misconducted himself, necessitating a warning before this incident.
Remedies
However, the probing team may find Frank’s explanation unreasonable. It was practically possible to inspect the casters first and still leave them in the same secure and covered corner of the receiving dock. Under the employee’s code of conduct, whatever interferes with the employer’s business or the employer’s relationship with his employees or customers is damaging to the employer’s interests. Notably, Frank’s actions demonstrated misconduct within the meaning of Section 1256 of the state of California code of employee conduct. Consequently, any employee activity that is damaging the employer’s interests necessitates a discharge. In the Cabinet Company’s case, the probing team is likely to discharge Frank from his job considering the weight of the evidence since it appears that Frank deliberately failed to carry out his inspection duties culminating to gross negligence.