Download PART IV Case Studies and Practice Exercises and more Summaries Voice in PDF only on Docsity!
Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery^99
PART IV
Case Studies and
Practice Exercises
These case studies have been prepared to provide specific risk and threat factors for examination and to create useful learning tools. They are intended to provide assistance to organization planners as they develop workplace violence prevention programs and assess their readiness to handle these types of situations. The characters in the case studies are fictional and have been created for educational purposes. No reference to any individual, living or dead, is intended or should be inferred.
100 Workplace Violence
102 Workplace Violence
A team allows for the linking of multiple disciplines and experience-bases for use in the examination and management of potentially dangerous circumstances. Where available, management, human resources, em- ployee assistance program, security, union, legal, and psychological service representatives should be considered for inclusion on the team. In cases where the full range of resources are not part of the organization, outside consultants are often pre-identified and join the team when critical cases are being handled. This would typically be the case in smaller organizations without in-house attorneys, psychologists, security personnel, or threat management professionals.
Employers should have plans in place ahead of time so that emergency and non-emergency situations can be dealt with as soon as possible. However, it is also necessary to build the maximum amount of flexibility possible into any plan.
Since organizations and situations differ, a list of specific steps or proce- dures to follow in all workplaces would be inappropriate and impractical. However, there are some basic concepts that all employers should keep in mind when formulating a strategy to address workplace violence:
- Respond promptly to immediate dangers to personnel and the work- place.
- Investigate threats and other reported incidents.
- Take threats and threatening behavior seriously; employees may not step forward with their concerns if they think that management will dismiss their worries.
- Deal with the issue of what may appear to be frivolous allegations (and concerns based on misunderstandings) by responding to each report seriously and objectively.
- Take disciplinary actions when warranted.
- Support victims and other affected workers after an incident.
- Attempt to bring the work environment back to normal after an inci- dent.
For any kind of team to work well in actual tasks, be it in sports or crisis management, it is important that the team develop its approach to common situations. In all teams, including those formed to lead organiza- tions’ responses in situations involving workplace violence, training and group practice are key factors to real-world success. It is important that a workplace violence management team discuss possible situations and workable solutions before being assembled for actual situations. This allows for coordination and feasibility issues to be worked out in advance.
Basic Concepts
Forming the team’s approach
Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery^103
These case studies have been prepared to provide specific risk and threat factors for examination and to create useful learning tools. They are intended to provide assistance to organization planners as they develop workplace violence prevention programs and assess their readiness to handle these types of situations. The characters in the case studies are fictional and have been created for educational purposes. No reference to any individual, living or dead, is intended or should be inferred.
As you read the case studies keep in mind that there is no one correct way to handle each situation. The case studies should not be taken as specific models of how to handle certain types of situations.
Rather, they should be a starting point for a discussion and exploration of how a team approach can be instituted and adapted to the specific needs of each organization. A successfully used alternative may not be useful in other instances, and there are probably several different approaches that could be equally useful. Each group in its discussions should strive to identify several workable approaches.
The case studies are intended to raise questions such as:
- Do we agree with the approach the employer took in the case study?
- If not, why wouldn’t that approach work for us?
- What other approaches would work for us?
- Do we have adequate resources to handle such a situation?
Establish a system to evaluate the effectiveness of a response in actual situations that arise so that procedures can be changed as necessary. Ask the following questions after reviewing each of the case studies and after planning how your organization would respond to the same or a similar situation:
- Does our workplace violence prevention program have a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the team’s approach following an incident?
- Would our written policy statement and written procedures limit our ability to easily adopt a more effective course of action in the future, if an evaluation of our response showed that a change in procedures was necessary?
- Do we have plans to test our response procedures and capability through practice exercises and preparedness drills, and to change procedures if necessary?
Questions for discussion
Questions for program evaluation
How to Use the Case
Studies
Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery^105
- The Company was faced with heavy competition and was downsizing. Employees were being asked to do more with less. Some incidents of workplace violence involve companies that are downsizing or that have recently done so.
- The employee was dedicated and hard working, and proud of his work. Employees who commit workplace violence are not always underachievers.
- Many times top executives become the target of a disgruntled employee because they are seen as the company or corporate image.
- It is important to actively pursue cases of workplace violence.
- Once the person is identified, immediate action should be taken to assess his or her actions.
- If an incident does occur, it is important to consider all victims and their families. Use the services of a priest or clergy. Decide how you are going to inform coworkers.
Lessons Learned
106 Workplace Violence
Case Study 2 - “Horseplay or Fighting?”
On Monday afternoon, a member of the organization’s newly established Incident Response Team was visited by a supervisor who wanted to discuss a situation in his section. The Friday before he had been walking to his car after work and noticed a group of employees congregating under a tree on the premises. They were obviously enjoying a few beers and were grilling meat on a small charcoal barbecue. They called him over and he accepted one of the offered beers and took a seat in the shade.
About an hour later, two of the workers began to horse around and show off their boxing skills. One employee misjudged his aim and, instead of merely coming close, actually made contact and bloodied the other worker’s nose. The injured worker swore and started throwing blows as if intending to cause harm. The two were pulled apart and everyone told them to cool down. The gathering continued and during the banter back and forth the bloodied employee had commented, “You’re lucky they pulled me off, or I’d have kicked your butt.” Everyone laughed.
This morning at work, the supervisor had heard the workers teasing that employee about being “beaten up.” This seemed to be taken in good humor at first, but one of the men kept laughing about it and telling all the employees who had missed the fun about what had happened. Over a few hours a number of the other employees had told him to “drop it already,” but he seemed unwilling to do so. The supervisor noticed the butt of the jokes seeming to get more and more sullen about the ribbing. One of the other employees came up to the supervisor and warned him that if he didn’t do something there might be trouble.
The supervisor talked to the harasser and told him to knock it off, which ended the teasing. The other employees seemed to appre- ciate the intervention. The supervisor mentioned the situation while having lunch with the Human Resources Manager. He was surprised when the Human Resources Manager said that the “I’d have kicked your butt” comment on the prior Friday was a viola- tion of the company policy against verbal threats and that he wanted the employee fired under the “Zero Tolerance” clause of the workplace violence policy.
The supervisor felt that this was ridiculous and wanted the Inci- dent Response Team to decide what should be done.
The Incident
108 Workplace Violence
- Will “Zero Tolerance” in your organization require firing of all violators of your workplace violence or safe workplace policy?
- Are your supervisors properly enforcing work rules in order to prevent situations conducive to potential violence or other injury?
- Does your Incident Response Team consist of diverse disciplines and perspectives to allow for all aspects of situations to be ad- dressed?
- Does your team have a single leader who can listen to conflicting views of members and make decisions as to what course of action to take in the absence of consensus?
Questions for Discussion
Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery^109
Case Study 3 - “Sexual Assault”
A female employee came into the office of the Director of Secu- rity and reported that a male coworker had sexually assaulted her.
The Incident Response Team was not activated.
The female employee explained that while the two employees were leaving a work area, the male coworker turned off the lights, reached both arms around her and grabbed her breasts. The male coworker was interviewed and denied intentionally touching her breasts. He did admit he might have brushed against her breast with his elbow. Both employees indicated that they had been working together for approximately one year. They also both admitted that they had a close working and personal relationship on and off the job. They indicated that they had lunch together on a daily basis and had met outside the workplace at a cocktail lounge for drinks. They also admitted that they had hugged and kissed each other in the past.
There was insufficient evidence to prove sexual assault and the matter was turned over to the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Sexual Harassment personnel in the Human Resources Office for further deter- mination.
- The EEO Manager wanted the case turned over to their office; however, it was important to treat the incident as a criminal matter. A copy of the investigation was sent to them after the investigation was completed. It is much more difficult to bring criminal charges of sexual assault/ harassment if the investiga- tion is not conducted by a trained criminal investigator.
- Although 50% of marriages start in the workplace, companies should discourage employees from having a personal relation- ship at work.
The Incident
Incident Response
Investigation
Conclusion
Lessons Learned
Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery^111
- Supervisors and managers who believe an employee may become violent should use a conference room or keep objects that can be used as weapons off their desks or behind them.
- Behavioral psychologists indicate that many times a person’s outward behavior is their way of asking for help. Supervisors and managers need to understand their role and responsibilities when handling such cases. Legal experts indicate that an employee must declare they are an alcoholic or have a condition that falls into one of the protected classes under the Americans with Disabilities Act prior to the commission of the crime or violation of company policy in order to be protected under ADA.
- The Threat Assessment Team should get involved in the early stages, even after an incident has occurred, to provide the neces- sary advice.
112 Workplace Violence
Case Study 5 - “Gun Threat”
On Friday afternoon, several employees reported to their supervi- sor that an employee told them that he was going to bring in a gun with a silencer and shoot someone.
Immediate action was required. Therefore, the Incident Response Team was not activated.
An employee who had worked for the company for over 25 years be- came upset with rumors being spread by coworkers. The employee told a group of coworkers that he was going to bring in a gun with a silencer and shoot someone. Several coworkers provided statements to that effect. When interviewed by the Corporate Director of Security, the witnesses denied making any such statements. The employee was interviewed and freely admitted to making the statements; however the employee indi- cated that he did not mean the threats seriously. The employee just wanted the other employees to stop spreading rumors.
Intimidation or the threat of violence violates various laws. In this case, the employee was not charged criminally; however, the matter was handled administratively.
- It is important that businesses have a clear policy regarding these types of threats and intimidation.
- Businesses must consider each case on the material facts and weigh all aggravating and mitigating factors. When do you termi- nate an employee with over 25 years of service?
- What can businesses do to help the employee?
The Incident
Investigation
Incident Response
Conclusion
Items for Consideration
114 Workplace Violence
- The supervisor said that a week earlier there had been a story on the national news about a triple murder at a workplace on the mainland which had ended with the gunman, a former worker, being shot and killed by the police. The supervisor said that the fired employee had commented that this was probably a pretty good way to go and had said, “I hope that doesn’t hurt too bad.” Another employee, reporting about the same situation, said that the fired coworker had noted that he could see how somebody could get so fed up with his boss that he would “come back with a gun.” He had ended the conversation by saying that he had always wanted a quick death himself, “like from a police sniper.”
- Another employee reported receiving a call from the fired employee in which he was told to stay home tomorrow and that he could keep the binoculars loaned to him by the fired employee. In the same call, the fired employee appeared at times incoherent but did mention that the recent divorce had forced him to lose his home. He also said that without his job he would not be able to make his child support pay- ments and he knew his wife would retaliate by preventing their children from visiting him during their next school break. The call ended with the fired employee asking his friend to tell his kids that he had always tried his best.
- The company called the police and was told by the responding officers that the circumstances did not yet amount to a crime and at this point there was little that could be done. The police did confirm that the employee had purchased a shotgun one week earlier.
- The Incident Response Team consulted with a Threat Assessment Professional who pointed out that the employee exhibited a number of extremely serious warning signs and pre-incident indicators: a) he had suffered a series of recent significant losses (family, job, home); b) he had exhibited an interest in, and identification with, a recent workplace murderer; c) he had exhibited an interest in suicide; d) he had dis- cussed being killed himself; e) he had indicated deep despair over his current situation; f) he had given away a personal object, and seemed to be settling his affairs; g) he had issued a non-conditional statement of intent to harm; and h) he had made a recent firearm purchase, coincid- ing with his likely termination. The Threat Assessment Professional also noted that the employee was familiar with his supervisor’s home and family.
Based on a number of recommendations, the organization did the follow- ing:
- The company arranged with the police department to have uniformed special duty officers stationed at the company premises around the clock for seven days. Extension of the coverage would be considered as the situation developed.
- The company sent the supervisor and her family to stay at a hotel for a week and agreed to pay the expenses.
Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery^115
- The company engaged the services of an investigative firm to conduct surveillance of the supervisor’s home by remote video.
- The supervisor’s neighbors were advised that a problem individual might be visiting the supervisor’s home. They were given a description of the fired employee and his vehicle and were asked to call the investi- gators or the police if he was spotted in the area.
- The local police district commander was contacted and it was agreed that for the next two days increased patrols of the supervisor’s neighbor- hood would be attempted as other calls for service allowed.
- Attempts were made to contact the fired employee’s ex-wife to obtain any information she might have regarding likely locations where the employee could be found.
- A psychologist with experience dealing with violence was retained to assist with any further contact from the former employee or to assist any current employees who might be experiencing anxiety over the situa- tion.
The next morning a neighbor getting his newspaper noticed a strange car pull up and park half a block away from the supervisor’s home; the driver was a lone male. The neighbor noted the license number and upon going indoors confirmed that it was the fired employee’s vehicle. He called the police and the investigation company. Arriving police officers saw the man walking up the driveway of the supervisor’s home with a golf bag slung over his shoulder and carrying an ax. They ordered him to halt and, when he brandished the ax at them, they fired a beanbag round, disarming him. They found a loaded shotgun in the golf bag. He subsequently confessed that he had intended to break down the door with the ax and murder his supervisor and her family. He was convicted of attempted murder and weapons charges and was incarcerated.
- Would your organization have moved as rapidly to assess and manage this kind of situation, or would the prevailing attitude have been that the employee was simply “blowing off steam” and the organization should simply “wait and see?”
- Has your organization identified a Threat Assessment Professional who is experienced in assessing information about troubling situations? What about a psychological/psychiatric resource for advice and counseling?
- Would your organization be willing to take measures to assure an employee’s safety if a work-related threat extended off-premises?
- Has your organization identified the resources available through local law enforcement to assist in situations such as this?
- What else would your organization do if confronted with this situation?
- What would your organization do to monitor the situation in the future?
Resolution
Questions for Discussion
Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery^117
- The Human Resources Manager speaks to other employees formerly supervised by the fired manager. They confirm that he had frequently spoken of angry confrontations he had initiated when subordinates had frustrated him. Two of the employees reported that he had threatened to “teach them a lesson” if they ever crossed him. Both reported that they felt physically threatened by his words and menacing manner.
- A background research firm conducts a check of public records in the locations where the former manager has lived in the past.
- The organization’s Chief of Security conducts a security briefing for the woman employee. As a courtesy, a security survey is made of her residence, which is in an apartment complex with excellent access controls, CCTV cameras and twenty-four hour security guards who monitor the main building entrance. Grills and gates secure the parking garage.
- The woman changes her unlisted telephone number and she is given a new extension number at work.
- The organization sends a letter to the former manager informing him that he may no longer visit the facility. He is told that all contact be- tween himself and the company should be through the Human Re- sources Manager.
- The woman’s parking stall is changed to another located closer to the parking garage elevators and directly under view of the building security cameras.
- The building security guards are instructed to escort the woman to and from her parking stall if she requests.
- The woman is referred to the organization’s EAP provider for counseling and support. She attends a few sessions, and appreciates having a sympathetic professional with whom she can confidentially confide her thoughts and feelings.
Upon receiving the letter, the fired manager leaves an angry voice mail message for the Human Resources Manager. While not containing any overt threat, it does transmit one piece of welcome news. He says they don’t have to worry about him coming back to their lousy building since he’s gotten a much better job on another island.
The investigation into the vandalism proves inconclusive. A passerby recalls walking into the building an hour before the discovery of the damage and seeing no vandalism. The same man walked out as the woman was showing it to the Human Resources Manager, and is certain that the car was fine when he arrived. A check of the parking lot tickets and access computer records shows that only the fired manager exited the parking lot during the relevant time period.
Through records found in California it is discovered that the fired man- ager was arrested for beating an ex-lover when she tried to break up with him. He was not convicted of that crime, but in a plea arrangement he entered a deferred plea to a charge of harassment.
Resolution
118 Workplace Violence
Although the Human Resources Manager does not receive any further communications from the former manager she does learn from friends on the other island that the former manager is indeed working there. No background inquiries were made to his former employer by his new employer.
The woman employee reports no further instances of vandalism. The woman expresses frustration with her own manager’s initial reaction, but express great appreciation for the subsequent handling by the organiza- tion.
- Do you agree or disagree with the handling of this situation by the organization?
- Do you think the position of the woman’s current manager is appropriate for your organization: short of incontrovertible proof of direct connection, the organization should do nothing to make an employee feel more secure?
- What else do you think the organization should have done in this situation?
- Does your organization conduct thorough background checks of prospective employees?
- Does your organization: a) Stress SAFETY with all managers? b) Promote upward reporting of employee safety and security concerns to the attention of the Threat Management Team or other responsible executives?
Questions for Discussion
