Reference no: EM131373827

The Case of the Disputed Arches
A complex, technical description of a yieldable arch roof support is not required. Centuries ago, the Greeks knew that the more pressure put on a keystone, the stronger it became. This concept has numerous applications, including as mine haulage roof supports. I had worked five years as a union miner and acquired a mining engineering degree. Nobody was going to fool me about yieldable arches. Joe Bond was a motorman who was smarter than his job required; he was a troublemaker. Nobody could fool me about Joe Bond either. I was 24 years old and had recently become superintendent of the Bunker Mine. The average age of the union employees at Bunker was 46.

I had just been left a note that Bond, who worked the midnight shift, had complained about the condition of some of the arches. He demanded that the arches be replaced. Rumor was that he would cause trouble if they were not replaced. Fact was that I was being tested. James Franklin, the mine foreman of 27 years and a man much respected by the union, looked at the arches. Frank Randall, the federal mine inspector, looked at the arches. I looked at the arches. We all agreed: Even though they showed signs of taking pressure, the arches were safe. Furthermore, replacing the arches would require closing the haulage, and therefore the mine, for about four days. I left a polite note for Joe Bond, which was to be given to him by the midnight shift foreman. I thanked Joe for his suggestion, his attention to matters of safety, and his wisdom in reporting these matters to management.

However, the arches in question did appear to be perfectly safe. I would continue to watch them and perhaps change them at the first convenient opportunity. The midnight shift foreman called to tell me that Joe had received the note and had promptly gone into the waiting room and announced that management was trying to get him killed. Then he went home, and the rest of the shift had followed close behind. The mine was on strike. I hurriedly phoned the union safety committee and met them at the mine at 2:30 a.m. The safety committee asked me to show them the arches in question. I had a better idea, I said. If these arches were as unsafe as claimed, that fact should be immediately obvious to so well-trained and experienced a group as the safety committee. I would accompany them down the entire length of the haulage, and they could tell me where the bad arches were. Two trips up and down the haulage produced a half dozen wrong guesses.

At the end of the second trip one member of the safety committee told me to stop messing around and just show them the arches in question. I pointed out the exact cause of Joe Bond's complaint to the committee. They reluctantly admitted that the arches didn't look too bad to them. They indicated that they would take the matter under advisement and let me know their recommendation. The day shift worked, much to the disgust of the midnight shift. There was an unwritten union rule that no one could work until the shift that initiated a strike decided to return. The afternoon shift would be the problem. The youngest, most volatile employees were on the afternoon shift, and I felt that they would be inclined to rekindle the strike.

To forestall this, James Franklin and I went into the waiting room to talk to the men on the afternoon shift as they arrived. James haltingly and cautiously explained the situation to the afternoon shift. He refused to definitely disclaim any hazard, saying only that although he didn't believe there was one, he couldn't guarantee anything and there was no substitute for a man's own best judgment in this type of matter. I finally lost patience with him and declared that I would guarantee that there was no hazard, and I could see no point in anyone losing a day's pay because of one troublemaker.

After talking among themselves, the afternoon shift decided to continue the strike. This established a two-to-one vote and guaranteed that tomorrow, the day shift also would not work. At this point I had my first consultation with my supervisor, Mike Beanch. Mike was known for giving in to union pressure, and the union lacked respect for him because of it. After a lengthy conversation, I convinced Mike that we should resist the demands to replace the arches. Thus began what promised to be a long strike. Every day I met with the safety committee in an attempt to prove the safety of the arches and find some way to get the men back to work. Every day I was encouraged and congratulated by the line foreman who worked under me for finally standing up to the union and restoring dignity to management. Every day Mike got more nervous.

During one meeting with the safety committee, when Joe Bond was present, I was asked if I had referred to Joe as a troublemaker. I replied that I certainly had, and I said that I had every belief that even Joe didn't think any hazard existed-that he simply did not want to work and chose to penalize everyone else's paycheck along with his own. Halfway through the second week of the strike, Mike called me. "We have a new wrinkle in the union's demands," he said. "They've backed down. They no longer insist that the arches be replaced. I've just finished talking to the safety committee on the phone." I was a little miffed that the safety committee was talking to Mike directly-bypassing me-but I ignored this for the present. "They are coming back to work, then," I said. "No," Mike replied. "Now they won't come back to work until you are fired."

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. How would you characterize the motivations of the case writer? What are Joe Bond's motivations in this case? Do any of these motivations change over the course of the case?

2. What is really in dispute in this case? Does it change from the beginning to the end of the case? How have the writer's attempts to resolve this conflict made it worse?

3. Are there some important differences in perception in this case? How are they contributing to the problem?