Grievances are common in employment relationships, and understanding government regulations and dispute resolution approaches is key to achieving stability. Organizations face multiple challenges, such as labor cost that motivates unfair employee treatment. The employee and employer can address such issues to benefit both parties and ensure fairness. This case study explores one of the struggle incidences and the choice of solution model.
Laws under Violation
The employer’s policy and directions violate labor and employment law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the regulation, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against people concerning their conditions, work privileges, and compensation based on their sex. Employers are also not supposed to segregate, classify or limit employees in ways that deprive opportunities or affect their employment status due to sex. The two provisions protect the condition of work that should not affect an individual’s personality, dignity, and health by forcing them to operate in an undignified environment. Such an environment arises where people experience harassment or classification that does not align with their sex.
The female crane operator has enough evidence to prove sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. First, the organization had a hostile environment that involved violent and cruel employee treatment jeopardizing health and safety (Abbas et al., 2017). The policy to avoid bathroom breaks and instead urinate on the cranes is offensive and incidental to employees’ environment. In this case, female workers face intentional exposure based on their sex, which affects their health and respect. Mane and women vary in their biological and anatomical orientation, which attracts different respect and hygiene needs. Urination is a private act for women due to the community values on their bodies, whose exposure would lower their respect. The act also risks their health following dirt that is likely to spill over their body during urination. Cranes and their surrounding area are unclean and well organized to resemble a bathroom that limits contamination among women. As a result, the employer discriminates against the employee because the terms do not align with her sex.
Moreover, the employer is acting contrary to the Occupational Safety and Health [OSHA] Act of 1970, requiring employees to ensure proper and convenient sanitary. Although the case does not explain the condition of the company bathrooms, the policy to urinate behind cranes contravenes the OSHA act because it exposes the female to an unclean workplace. The flour next to a crane is not clean for women to urinate based on their anatomy. Urination also makes the area untidy with risks of infections.
Choice of Mediation
The employer should not accept mediation because of the risk to justice following the nature of her employee. Studies have found mediation to favor robust employees based on the organizations’ financial position (Feng & Xie, 2020). Mediation is less formal, with no particular procedure and rules. As a result, power differences play a significant role in the outcomes, with the strong party winning more (Feng & Xie, 2020). Aggressive people in dispute resolution influence the process more because they are content to drive the conversation than the timid ones. In this case, due to class variation, the female worker is likely to fear facing her employee in an informal setting. An abusive relationship exists based on sex because the company intended to intimidate the worker based on sex and force her work under deplorable and degrading conditions. Mediation might become another avenue to harm the victim more where the employer has an opportunity to continue insisting on urinating behind the cranes or considering a lower position in pay and duties. The bullying might force the worker to accept unfair conditions due to the feeling that the employer is right. As a result, the chances of getting fairness through mediation are low and might influence the employer to consider other unjust conditions.
Additionally, mediation might be time wastage and a chance for the organization to hide evidence of discrimination and an unsafe work environment. Mediation is challenging when participants withhold information that is key to solving differences (Feng & Xie, 2020). The hiding occurs when an organization is not ready to accept liabilities to avoid later legal processes and solutions that impact its business and operations. Such dangers are present in the case where the company might not readily accept a policy that discriminates and sexually harasses women. Owning the mistreatment will mean that the organization reverses its regulation, significantly impacting production, including employment for more staff. The employer might extend some favors to the employee, such as salary increment while mating the unsafe work environment, or make other offers that sustain injustices. As a result, mediation is not promising in the current case where company laws are in question and require change.
Recommendation to the Parties
An appropriate recommendation from a mediator to the parties is to look at each other’s interests. Workplace conflicts and regulations violations arise due to selfish advances (Hussain, 2020). The authoritative people focus on goals that violate others’ rights and privileges to continue domination and increase gains. As a result, the underlying issue leading to the antagonism is the power difference that motivates some people to oppress others. A mediator should empower both parties to discuss boundaries and fair treatment to end the struggle. The role of mediators is to empower those involved to solve their differences voluntarily (Feng & Xie, 2020). In the current case, the employer and employee need support to control the power to allow the same level of participation and objective evaluation of issues. First, the employer is powerful and needs to feel and perceive the female as equally powerful. Second, the employee should experience influence over the conversation to avoid being timid. Such assistance will create a conducive platform for the involved persons to engage with legal requirements such as the OSHA act to achieve justice.
A mediator should indorse the management to look at the female’s welfare, including the shame and illnesses she can experience if she operates under the current policy or moves to a lower duty position. The suggestion affects the company to see employees as important stakeholders and people with needs to address. A manager looking at the case from the perspective would not feel under pressure through the labor and employment law to ensure a conducive work environment but make it a voluntary act towards fairness. Advice on the employee would be to consider the firm’s pressure on staffing, income, and impact of the current case on its operations and reputation. Such an approach is key to the female worker accepting terms such as slow policy change that will benefit both members.
In conclusion, the case demonstrates that companies are under government regulation with laws such as the OSHA Act to facilitate employee justice. The OSHA Act demands a safe working environment while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against discrimination. Workers can justify their case under the two laws and assess whether mediation o other dispute resolution approaches are appropriate. Mediation requires an instance where employees do not experience further abuse or become timid.
Abbas, A. A., Hussein, A. A. A., & Khali, H. H. (2017). The effect of hostile work environment on organizational alienation: the mediation role of the relationship between the leader and followers. Asian Social Science, 13(2), 140-158. Web.
Feng, J., & Xie, P. (2020). Is mediation the preferred procedure in labour dispute resolution systems? Evidence from employer-employee matched data in China. Journal of Industrial Relations, 62(1), 81-103. Web.
Hussain, A. (2020). Workplace conflicts and its effect on employee productivity: A mediating role of workplace politics. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(3), 2774-2783. Web.