Case Study Union Pacific

784 Words 4 Pages
Case Analysis

Internal UP Policy
Union Pacific strictly prohibits any discrimination or harassment based on a person 's race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, religion, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, pregnancy, or any other ground prohibited by law ("protected status"). This policy covers all aspects of employment, including hiring, promotions, terminations, pay, and the work environment.

Retaliation against Employees Who Report Work-Related Personal Injuries, Illnesses or Safety Concerns is Prohibited
Union Pacific is committed to providing a work environment free from fear of reporting a work-related personal injury, illness
…show more content…
The EEO Manager will update information to the VL to allow the “C” to preserve his anonymity. The “C” filed a value line complaint (Employee Relations) on 5.3.16, which mirrors the allegations of retaliation. The same “C” also anonymously filed the origin case (VL 123427812). The facts did however reveal the identity of the “C” in the 1st VL case. Daniel Glen conducted the 1st investigation. The investigation surrounded a Nick Pujanes, General Foreman and the “C”. The original safety issue was determined not to be a risk . Pjuanes and the “C” had a verbal exchange in the work place. Pujanes manager, Fritz G. Antoine, coached Pujanes on appropriate work interactions and reminded him of the “every contact matters” …show more content…
“C” was coached for failing to adhere to appropriate PPE on May 23, 2016. The ETE Information (contained in APDS) showed the “C” was coached on three occasions during May, 2016. Three different managers issued the three difference safety coaching events.

The “C” was observed in the work area with a respirator on as he prepared to sand equipment. The “C” had a beard. The beard prevents the proper safety seal for the respirator placing the employee at risk. Antione observed the infraction. He instructed his supervisor, Marius Vladeanu to address the situation. Vladeanu issued a coaching as he too had observed the infraction. Pujanes said that he had observed the “C” with a beard as well. The “C” was issued a coaching for non-compliance of the safety rules regulating PPE –Respirators.

The “C” approached Antoine, the next day, saying he received the coaching when he was clean shaven. Anitone informed him that he personally had observed the “C” with a beard and the respiratory on the day before. Pujanes mentioned that the OHN had just reminded people about the appropriate protocol of being clean

Related Documents

Related Topics