The Code Section To Be Interpreted:
Code 2.3 – Any employee of The Company shall be guilty of misconduct if they issue an order or directive to the employees that they supervise which would cause harm to any person or The Company. Note that this prohibition on causing harm shall not extend to banning the defeat of a competitor if the competitor is defeated without any other form of misconduct, dishonesty, or illicit action.
Examples of Misconduct Under This Code Section:
- Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A is being persecuted for some behavior which did not occur or is not a violation of the Code of Conduct by some third party external to The Company. Employee A decides that it would be best for The Company if the persecution were brought to an end. Employee A alters some of The Company’s advertising materials in a way which is libelous to the persecutors, and orders Employee B to distribute the materials which would otherwise be in accordance with Employee B’s employment specification. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.3. Libel is a harmful act, and Employee A ordered Employee B to distribute it, thereby ordering Employee B to do harm.
- Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. A number of misguided protesters have blockaded a site that The Company requires access to. Employee A orders Employee B to drive a vehicle up to the protesters and rev the engine menacingly and otherwise make it appear as if the vehicle would be used to drive through the protesters. Many of the protesters see the threatening action and try desperately to escape. One of the protesters is trampled and injured by protesters fleeing the threat. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.3.
- Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. A new piece of industrial machinery is installed by The Company and Employee A orders Employee B to begin using the machine immediately for production to meet a fast approaching deadline without reviewing manufacturer safety warnings or instructions and then training them to Employee B and without ordering Employee B to review and comply with manufacturer safety warnings and instructions. Employee B misoperates the new piece of equipment resulting in serious bodily harm to Employee B. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.3.
- Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A discovers that a client will soon be entering into competition with The Company. The Company has agreed to fulfill an order of product to the client and the order is ready to ship. Employee A decides that fulfilling the order properly will harm The Company because the client will soon be a competitor, but also that not appearing to be attempting to fulfill the order will harm The Company. Therefore Employee A alters the packaging of the product such that it will likely be damaged during shipment and then orders Employee B to ship the order. Employee A is guilty of misconduct under code section 2.3 (and 3.2). Although the client will soon be a competitor, Employee A is causing the client harm by willfully damaging property belonging to The Company or client (depending upon when ownership of the product is transferred during the shipping process) which is otherwise misconduct under code section 3.2.
Examples That Are Not Misconduct Under This Code Section:
- Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A is being persecuted for some behavior which did not occur or is not a violation of the Code of Conduct by some third party external to The Company. Employee A decides that it would be best for The Company if the persecution were brought to an end. Employee A alters some of The Company’s advertising materials in a way which is critical of the persecutors, and orders Employee B to distribute the materials which would otherwise be in accordance with Employee B’s employment specification. There is no misconduct.
- Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. A number of misguided protesters have blockaded a site that The Company requires access to. Employee A orders Employee B to construct a ladder or bridge which bypasses the protesters’ blockade. One of the protesters sees this attempt to bypass the blockade and assaults Employee B. Employees A and B subdue the protestor with punches and restrain the protester. There is no misconduct. Doing something which outsmarts or is otherwise better than someone else is not harm, and it is not reasonable to expect that other people will react violently to something which is not harm, so the order to attempt to bypass the protesters was not an order to cause harm. Furthermore, the punches and restraint employed against the protester are not misconduct because the assault by the protester, as with any assault that isn’t carried out with an intentionally non-lethal weapon such as a tazer, a stun gun, or trained martial non-lethal subjugation techniques that it may be presumed that police officers would employ if not otherwise armed, was potentially lethal and therefore were not misconduct persuant to code section 3.1.
- Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. A new piece of industrial machinery is installed by The Company and Employee A reviews the manufacturer safety warnings and instructions and practices using the machine several times. Then Employee A trains Employee B to use the machine, orders Employee B to follow written and posted safety precautions, and tests Employee B on the understanding of the instructions and precautions. Employee B misoperates the new piece of equipment resulting in serious bodily harm to Employee B. There is no misconduct.
- Employee A is Employee B’s supervisor. Employee A discovers that a client will soon be entering into competition with The Company. The Company has agreed to fulfill an order of product to the client and the order is ready to ship. Employee A orders Employee B to ship the order. There is no misconduct.
