Read the mini-case below and answer the questions at the end.

The Dangerous Knife

The Northwest Electronics Corporation has a rule against the possession of dangerous knives on company property, and over the years it has disciplined (generally by dis-charging) more than a few of its approximately 5,000 employees for having violated it. In all such cases until now, however, the knife was visible (more than once because it was being brandished). Recently, plant security guard Ralph Von Strasser, suspecting the possession of a knife by a female worker, unilaterally entered and searched her locker and her purse and discovered that his suspicions were in fact warranted since the dangerous knife was in the purse. As the woman prepared to leave the premises by the front gate at quit-ting time that afternoon, she was escorted to the security office and asked to empty her purse. She was not informed why this request was being made. Refusing to honor it, she took her purse and went out the gate. She was informed when she showed up for work on the following morning that she had been discharged for "refusing to obey the legitimate order of a plant security officer." The case wound up in arbitration.

Had you been the arbitrator here, would you have sustained the discharge, and why or why not?

Answer : I will object the discharge for just refusing to obey the order

    of plant security officer. 
 

Step-by-step explanation

What are my justifications?
 

     1. An employee can be terminated if he/she violated any of the

        company rules and regulations: serious misconduct or willful 

        disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of the 

        business officers or representatives in connection to his/her 

        work; gross and habitual neglect of duties; fraud or breach

        of trust bestowed upon the employee; commission of crime;

        stealing or gambling inside the premises; revealing trade 

        secrets; excessive and unexplained absences; work 

        disruption and untolerable behavior or misconduct, etc.

        Argument : in the case of the female worker who refused to

        open her purse, it was her  lawful right not to comply with the

        instruction of security guard. The latter had no written 

        authorization from HR Manager to enter the ladies' locker

        room and find something on her purse. This was just a  

        suspicion and no surveillance  was undertaken prior to the

        search. She did not violate the company rule because 

        the action undertaken by the Security Officer was not 

        related to her current work as production worker and

        no evidence (possession of dangerous knife) was presented

        by the Security office.

     2. The employee was not given due justice. She should have

         been called by the HR Manager together with her superior

         to identify and document the issues. Coach the employee

         to resolve the complaint of the security guard.