A) A 40-year-old man in the U.S. has a 0.24% risk of dying during the next year . An insurance company charges $250 per year for a life-insurance policy that pays a $100,000 death benefit. What is the expected value for the person buying the insurance? Round your answer to the nearest dollar.

Expected Value: $ for the year

B)If you randomly select a letter from the phrase "Ichiro Suzuki is at the top of the lineup," what is the probability that you select a vowel? (Your answer must be in the form of a reduced fraction.)

P(vowel) = ?

C)A jar contains 10 red marbles numbered 1 to 10, 6 blue marbles numbered 1 to 6, and 4 white marbles numbered 1 to 4. A marble is drawn at random from the jar. Find the probability of the given event. Write your answers as integers or reduced fractions.

-The marble is red.    

-The marble is not red.    

-The marble has the number 3 written on it.    

-The marble is blue with the number 2 written on it.    

-The marble has the number 20 written on it.

In a small town called Tatooine, the local beer brewery "Mos Eisley Cantina" is planning to send out an electronic promotion campaign with a free drink code to boost attendance for their Thursday night happy hour. The data for their past efforts is given in the file Tatooine.txt where 1 indicates a response/show and 0 indicates a no response/show. They would like to make sure that at least 100 customers will show up from the mailing list on Thursday night. What is the minimum number of emails they need to send such that the probability of at least 100 customers showing up is roughly 70%. Q19. What is the minimum number of emails they need to send such that the probability of at least 100 customers showing up is 0.75. a) 1500 b) 1200 c) 1000 d) 1050 Q20. Based on your answer, what is the expected number of customers that will show up on Thursday from the mailing list? a) 151 b) 121 c) 101 d) 106

Mean=.1013

100,000 people in the text file

An ideal gaseous reaction (which is a hypothetical gaseous reaction that conforms to the laws governing gas behavior) occurs at a constant pressure of 50.0 atm and releases 60.4 kJ of heat. Before the reaction, the volume of the system was 7.80 L . After the reaction, the volume of the system was 2.80 L . Calculate the total internal energy change, ΔE, in kilojoules. Express your answer with the appropriate units. ΔE = -35.2 kJ SubmitHintsMy AnswersGive UpReview Part Correct Although the system absorbed some energy in the form of work, the significant release of heat caused the total change to be negative. State functions versus path functions The change in internal energy, ΔE, is a state function because it depends only on the initial and final states of the system, and not on the path of change. In contrast, q and w are path functions because they depend on the path of change and not just the initial and final states of the system.

Part C An ideal gas (which is is a hypothetical gas that conforms to the laws governing gas behavior) confined to a container with a massless piston at the top. (Figure 2) A massless wire is attached to the piston. When an external pressure of 2.00 atm is applied to the wire, the gas compresses from 6.60 to 3.30 L . When the external pressure is increased to 2.50 atm, the gas further compresses from 3.30 to 2.64 L . In a separate experiment with the same initial conditions, a pressure of 2.50 atm was applied to the ideal gas, decreasing its volume from 6.60 to 2.64 L in one step. If the final temperature was the same for both processes, what is the difference between q for the two-step process and q for the one-step process in joules? Express your answer with the appropriate units.

please answer for Part C

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

(2) Considering that the mechanic claimed that the ThyssenKrupp culture contributed to such behaviour, in your opinion, does ThyssenKrupp need to change its corporate culture? If not, why not?   

(3)  You have to take one side, either the company ThyssenKrupp or the fired employee. If you decide to represent ThyssenKrupp, then you are the defense lawyer. If you decide to represent the fired mechanic, you are the Plaintiff’s Lawyer. Present your arguments with evidences and supporting matter to the Judge.

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behavior. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humor. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however, it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labor relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behavior. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package. THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principal offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanic's grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

Questions

(3) Are there any Tort issues involved here? What other legal issues are involved here? Explain.

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

Question 1. What corporate values did ThyssenKrupp refer to when deciding to terminate the mechanic? What are the health and safety issues involved here? Do you think an informal work environment is leading towards a lack of strict health & safety policy at the workplace?

Question 2. Considering that the mechanic claimed that the ThyssenKrupp culture contributed to such behaviour, in your opinion, does ThyssenKrupp need to change its corporate culture? If not, why not?

Question 3. Are there any Tort issues involved here? What other legal issues are involved here? Explain

Question 4. Did the Ontario Labour Relation Board (OLRB) accept the defense that organizational culture contributed to the employee behaviour? Explain their reasoning. Considering the company’s work environment, what factors need to be considered while updating the company’s health & safety policy?

Each question may be answered in about 150 to 200 words.

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

Question 5. If this case goes to court, what arguments the Plaintiff’s Lawyer, representing the fired worker, would present before the court?

Question 6. What would be the line of Defense for the Lawyer of Thyssen Krupp Elevator?

Each question may be answered in about 150 to 200 words.

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada

INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behaviour. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humour. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting, but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labour relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behaviour. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package.

THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principle offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanics grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).”

1. Considering that the mechanic claimed that the ThyssenKrupp culture contributed to such behaviour, in your opinion, does ThyssenKrupp need to change its corporate culture? If not, why not?

ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada INTRODUCTION During a lunchroom break, a male employee at ThyssenKrupp decided to take up a dare from a fellow colleague for $100 and the Jackass-like prank was videotaped then posted to YouTube. When it came to the attention of the HR manager and other senior management, the employee was fired for violating company policy. The employee argued in court that the organizational culture allowed such behavior. But would the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) agree?

BACKGROUND ThyssenKrupp Elevator Canada was subcontracting elevator installation at a construction site in downtown Toronto where a large office building was being built. All the workers on the site, including those from ThyssenKrupp, and the main contractor of the site, PCL Construction, were male and the culture of the workplace was described as a “macho” environment where pranks were played. There were reportedly pictures of women and provocative calendars hanging on walls, as well as signs displaying vulgar humor. There was little concern about these as access to the building was restricted to people involved in the construction project. One of ThyssenKrupp's employees at the site was an elevator mechanic. He and several other employees engaged in what he called “picking” on each other and playing pranks to keep things light at work. They also watched pornographic scenes on a worker's iPod and episodes of the television show Jackass, which features individuals doing stupid activities on dares.

ESCALATION OF PRANK BEHAVIOUR Over a period of a few weeks, the mechanic and other employees performed more and more pranks that copied some of the ones they saw on the Jackass show. Typically these events took place in the basement lunchroom where employees gathered for breaks and meals, to change clothes, and to socialize. Soon, money was being offered on dares to do certain actions. For example, one ThyssenKrupp employee accepted a dare that involved a $60 payment—money collected from fellow employees, including three foremen. The dare involved the employee eating spoiled food found in the common refrigerator of the lunchroom. A couple of weeks after the first dare, the mechanic was observed playing with a stapler in the lunchroom on a break. One of the foremen walked in and jokingly said, “What are you going to do with that? Why don't you staple your nuts to something?” The mechanic jokingly replied that he'd do it “if you get enough money.” Though he claimed it was intended as a joke, word spread within a few hours, and soon $100 was raised among seven other ThyssenKrupp and three PCL employees. Another four people were in the lunchroom later that afternoon watching when the mechanic decided to go ahead with the staple dare. He proceeded to drop his work uniform trousers and staple his scrotum to a wooden plank, which was met by “cheering and high fives,” according to the mechanic. With the mechanic's knowledge, the prank was filmed on video. Included on-camera were all those employees present, wearing full worksite uniforms, PCL logos on hats, and TK shirt patches—all easily identifiable and recorded by a worker who was present that day. The mechanic was advised at a later date that the event was posted on YouTube. Initially, the mechanic did nothing about the YouTube posting but eventually asked for it to be taken off the site. To ensure this was done, the mechanic went back to YouTube searching for the video clip, but couldn't find it. He assumed it had been removed, however, it was not—he just didn't search correctly. In total, the video clip was assessable on YouTube for two weeks, during which time many employees in the construction industry watched it. It was during these two weeks that ThyssenKrupp became aware of the video after the HR department received an email with a link to the video, and several people discussed it with a ThyssenKrupp executive at a construction labor relations conference. Conference participants insisted the employee was from ThyssenKrupp, and they questioned how the company could allow something like that to happen during work hours. At this point, ThyssenKrupp management reviewed the video one more time and decided that the mechanic had violated its workplace harassment policy, which prohibited “practical jokes of a sexual nature which cause awkwardness or embarrassment.” The mechanic was fired for “a flagrant violation” of ThyssenKrupp's harassment policy and risking the company's reputation.

CULTURE AT FAULT Upon being fired from his job, the mechanic filed a grievance with the OLRB. He argued that dismissal was too harsh given the culture of the workplace which was accepting of that type of behavior. He also said no one told him not to do it, no one expressed displeasure, and no one mentioned they were offended. He argued that other employees had done stunts but questioned why he was the only one disciplined for his actions. He also claimed to have never seen the workplace harassment policy, even though it was part of the orientation package. THE DECISION In July 2011, the OLRB found the mechanic's misconduct on the employer's premises, plus his permission to record it, “patently unacceptable in almost any workplace.” The fact that his employer was easily identified in the video clip contributed to the decision. The fact that the mechanic claimed not to have known about the corporate harassment policy was irrelevant—he should have known better. The OLRB also dismissed as irrelevant that no one protested or objected to the prank during the lunch break, which the mechanic argued was “not during work hours.” The court stated that ThyssenKrupp has an interest in preventing such horseplay and stunts in the workplace. They are in a safety-sensitive industry and such employee misconduct places the firm's reputation in jeopardy. The seriousness of the mechanic's misconduct also superseded any other factors, such as his claim of being a good employee with a clean record and the argument around the culture. There was no evidence that the company was aware of other pranks, and his role as the principal offender wasn't diminished by the culture, said the board. In dismissing the mechanic's grievance, the board stated, “If (ThyssenKrupp) employees want to emulate the principles of Jackass by self-abuse, they may be free to do so when they are not on the (employer's) premises and cannot be identified as being associated with (ThyssenKrupp).

(4) Did the Ontario Labour Relation Board (OLRB) accept the defense that organizational culture contributed to the employee behavior? Explain their reasoning. Considering the company’s work environment, what factors need to be considered while updating the company’s health & safety policy?

1. Which of the following is not a characteristic of the normal probability distribution?

2. If , n = 12, and the slope equals 0.5, then the y-intercept of the least squares line is b₀ = 276.08.

True

False

3. The coefficient of correlation r is a number that indicates the direction and the strength of the linear relationship between the dependent variable y and the independent variable x.

True

False

4. The function that defines the probability distribution of a continuous random variable is a