Violence in the Workplace: The Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse Shooting

Introduction

In 2019, Gary Martin opened fire at the Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse where he had just been informed of his termination for failing to follow safety protocol. Martin had had a feeling that he was about to be fired, which is why he brought his gun into the workplace that day. He promised to co-workers that if he lost his job he would kill everyone at the place. Indeed, when taken into the managers office and told he was let go, he shot everyone in the room and then went to look for other co-workers with whom he wanted to settle a score of sorts (ABC 7, 2019). All told, Martin killed five and injured several more. He himself died on the scene just hours after engaging police with open fire.

Basic Issues

The basic issues involved in the case of the Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse shooting were that the employ Gary Martin had a history of violence, had been incarcerated, and should not have been able to possess a gun due to federal law. He had a petty grievance with management over workplace safety and he was likely to be terminated for not wearing safety goggles. He also had a workplace grievance with a co-worker. The warehouse was not designed to prevent incidents of violence such as workplace shooting, and had no administrative or engineering controls in place to deal with such a safety issue.

The relationship among these issues is that Martin was a worker with a history of violence, and he should have been a red flag hire; co-workers were obviously bothered by him, as they had reported on him for not following safety protocol. He in turn was frustrated with co-workers, and having no moral compass or self-restraint he turned to violence to get revenge on the system and those who annoyed him once it became apparent to management that he could not be trusted to continue with his employment there.

Possible Administrative Controls for Prevention

According to Chapter 13 (n.d.), Administrative controls consist of management practices that can reduce the risk of workplace violence. These practices include establishing policies, conducting background checks, and providing training for employees (p. 292). Administrative controls that management could have implemented to prevent this situation, therefore, include a background check of Martin before hiring him: this would have shown that he had a history of violence and might not be a positive influence in the workplace; and a gun policy that would have prohibited employees from having guns anywhere on the premises including in their cars in the parking lot. Since it was known that Martin had a gun in his car when at work, this would have been grounds from preventing his entry into the workplace. Whether training would have helped to prevent the situation is unknown. It is likely the case that some training was already provided in terms of workplace safety, but Martin being impervious to correction was determined not to follow the rules.

To what extent active shooter training might have helped spare some lives is also unclear. As Wallace (2020) points out, training of this sort can help to increase a sense of self-efficacy among workersbut in the case of the Harry Pratt shooting, Martin opened fire first on his supervisors without warningso no training would have saved them. Secondly, there was little opportunity for anyone to do anything once it became apparent what was happening: those who could flee did so, and Martin began hunting for the one co-worker with whom he had long had...

…an immediate threat, the company should have insisted that it be reported and that a policy be in place for how management should address the matter. Martin had been given too many passes, both from managers and from co-workers, and finally he put his plan into motion.

Long-Term Impact/Outcome of the Case

The long-term impact of the case is that it led to law enforcement taking more seriously the issue of closing the FOIC loopholes that enabled Martin to obtain a firearm in the first place. This means it took a workplace shooting for law enforcement to realize the gravity and seriousness of its job (CBS, 2022). As unfortunate as that may be, the fact that loopholes have begun to be closed shows that at least some administrative progress has been made.

At Harry Pratt, the administrative and engineering controls needed to prevent a similar shootout have been put into place, with greater emphasis given to workplace safety measures, such as surveillance and reporting policies put into place. Because the warehouse is so large, the idea of installing gun detectors was deemed impractical, but some focus has been given to training employees on how to recognize and report on workplace threats. Some attention has also been given to conducting more thorough background checks and working with police to ensure violent criminals are not slipping through the cracks.

Conclusion

With some greater attention given to administrative and engineering controls, the disaster at Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse could possibly have been prevented. Beginning with the administrative controls of better background checks, better workplace training, a system for reporting on workers making threats, a program for responding to a workplace shooting, and a no-guns-on-site policy, the administration might have mitigated the risk of a shooting. The engineering controls that might have helped would have been better surveillance, and a…