"In addition to the broken jaw, the female worker had “a large laceration”

Every incident in our opinion can result in valuable discussion in our plants. Here is a recent story on workplace violence that leads to a discussion on training.

A woman is suing the temporary employment agency, an aluminium extrusion company, and the individual who assaulted her at the factory in July 2020.

The woman of filed the lawsuit in County Common Pleas Court over an incident at the aluminum extrusion factory in which the male worker assaulted female worker, causing her to hit her head on a piece of machinery and break her jaw in three places.

The male worker was sentenced in May in County Common Pleas Court to between 6.9 years and 8.4 years in prison and is now in prison.

The sentence was for the felonious assault of Wilkinson and a separate grand theft of $76,000 of medical services, according to Vindicator files.

At the time of the attack, the male worker had just completed an eight-year prison sentence handed down in 2012 in a County for aggravated robbery with a gun. The male worker, an Alabama native, returned to Ohio after completing that prison sentence.

Local police said they were called to the plant in early July 2020, and saw that could not speak because of her injuries and had large amounts of blood covering her shirt, hands and face.

Witnesses said (female worker), was training (male worker) how to operate a piece of machinery. (Male worker) was being “disrespectful” toward her, police said.

After (female worker) corrected (male worker) multiple times, witnesses said, he punched her in the face, causing her to fall and hit her head on one of the machines. (male worker) left the scene before police arrived.

The assistant county prosecutor, said the male “took offense for some reason” and punched her. In addition to the broken jaw, the female worker had “a large laceration” and needed several months of recuperation and rehabilitation, the prosecutor said.

ALLEGATIONS

The suit filed in July alleges that temporary staffing company failed to interview male worker and failed to check male worker’s background and criminal history or was grossly negligent in doing an investigation of male worker prior to referring him to the aluminium extrusion company for a temporary job there.

The temporary staffing company denied that allegation in a response the company filed to the lawsuit.

As a result of the actions of the defendants, the female worker suffered severe physical and psychological injuries and has incurred substantial medical bills, the suit alleges. The suit seeks at least $25,000 in damages from temporary staffing company, aluminium extrusion company and the male worker.

The suit, filed by a local attorney, alleges that male worker’s actions were malicious and in reckless disregard for female worker’s rights and that aluminium extrusion company had a duty to investigate male worker’s background before accepting him as a temporary employee.

The temporary staffing company response stated that it was male worker’s actions that “caused any and all injuries and damages alleged.” The temporary staffing company’s response also stated that the female worker failed to file the suit within the required period of time.

The temporary staffing company response denies many of the allegations in female worker’s suit but agrees that it offered male worker to aluminium extrusion employee as a temporary employee. The temporary staffing company stated that female worker’s injuries were “caused by an intervening or superseding act over which this defendant had no control.”

An aluminium extrusion company filing in the case alleges that the Wilkinson lawsuit is barred by the statute of limitations and that the lawsuit is “barred by the Employer’s Liability Immunity Statute of the Ohio Revised Code,” “Fellow employee’s Immunity Statute of the Ohio Revised Code” and the Ohio Constitution.

The aluminium extrusion company’s response agrees that temporary staffing company referred the male worker to the aluminum extrusion company as a temporary employee and that male worker caused female worker to “sustain some injury, the extent of which is unknown, while both were working” at aluminium extrusion company.

The aluminium extrusion company’s response agrees with the lawsuit’s contention that temporary staffing company is “directly responsible” for male worker’s assault of the female worker.

The aluminium extrusion company also sued temporary staffing company and male worker (currently in prison) over the incident in common pleas court, alleging temporary staffing company “represented that it conducted thorough background checks on all temporary employment candidates, which included checking the candidates’ criminal history.”

The temporary staffing company, which filed a cross-claim against male worker, denied aluminium extrusion company’s allegation. That suit is pending before a local Judge with a trial set for Jan. 4.

We pray that the injured worker recovered or recovers fully from their injuries incurred by another worker. The judicial system was engaged and the male worker was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison for his assault on the female worker.

This incident covers in no order of importance, worker training and workplace violence. Currently, all aluminium companies that we know are in desperate need for workers. How to attract new workers varies around the globe. Some companies are very proactive with visiting local high schools. Having community events, etc. While others due to location and age of population are forced to use other methods including the use of temporary workers. No doubt there are some financial reasons why companies use temporary workers. Regardless, of the reason why temporary or even new workers were hired. The training of these workers is important.

The number one mistakes companies do with training involving machinery operation is the failure to use the operating manual as the guide. NEVER allow a worker to train another worker without using an equipment manual. Why? Because all too often workers instructing will unintentionally teach the new operator shortcuts. The only way, only way to prevent workers from teaching other workers short cuts is by using the equipment manual as the guide.

The next topic is workplace violence. When we discuss workplace violence and all the it encompasses many aluminium companies are reluctant to discuss this topic. We counter that any failure or ignoring to discuss the topic of workplace violence does not mean your workplace is free of this difficult topic. On our travels around the globe we will depart with a question or focus. No doubt companies ask the editors of the Aluminium Plant Safety Blog for our expertise on a variety of safety topics. But, in return we want to learn from our hosts. A number of years ago as we bounced around the Middle East visiting smelters we asked our hosts about how they train new workers. Visit after visit we learned how much each Middle East smelters value training new workers. It was very impressive how each company performed training. Most of the smelters had individuals whose task was to train new workers on the task they would perform. Now because these trainers were not production workers it lessened the chance that the new workers would be taught short cuts. We wondered if the aluminium extrusion company had a dedicated trainer if this incident would not have occurred. Just a thought.

The Aluminium Times had an article on workplace violence. The article can be downloaded here.

Please comment.