Reference no: EM133973455

Question

Wayne was hired as a truck driver for a steel transportation company in August 2012. In early November 2012, he brought his truck in for service and, on the way home, he noticed that his replacement truck was faulty: the steering wheel was loose, the mirrors had cracks in them, there was no engine brake, and fuel was leaking from the caps of both fuel tanks. The next morning, Wayne called the dispatcher to say he would not drive the replacement truck to haul steel because it was unsafe. The dispatcher asked him to haul one final load back to Hamilton, which he refused to do, and his supervisor then called and, after a heated discussion, told him he was fired. Wayne filed a complaint, saying this was a reprisal for his exercising his right to refuse unsafe work. The employer countered that Wayne was still a probationary employee (and therefore could be terminated for any reason) and, in addition, he was fired for cause. The employer claimed Wayne swore at the dispatcher when he called in about the replacement truck (which Wayne denied) and that Wayne had failed to return another driver's CB radio in a truck he had started using.

Whose arguments do you think would be successful-Wayne's or the employers? Support your answer.