Old Smoke
The case of "Old Smoke" presents workplace issues involving cigarette smoke, perfume and body odor. The employer is responsible for upholding law and company policy, as well as using common sense and tact to deal with possibly competing employee interests while continuing to effectively meet business requirements. Though laws and company policy sometimes assist in formulating solutions, employers are also charged with creative thinking to deal with some workplace issues uncovered by law and/or policy.
Explain how you would handle this situation if you were Charles Renfold
Charles Renfold has competing problems. Darlene Lambert is an employee entitled to a safe workplace, including freedom from second-hand smoke and the scent of old smoke. Simultaneously, Renfold has a pressing deadline for a report requiring Darlene's assistance with files located in a room that strongly smells of old smoke (Shaw, 2010, p. 339). Darlene rightfully refuses to work in that environment. Renfold cannot force Darlene to work in the "unsafe" file room, yet he needs her work on the files to complete the report. Consequently, Renfold should quickly and inexpensively relocate the files to an area in which Darlene can access the files without being subjected to the bad effects of smoke. He should have the files moved to an alternate, smoke-free area in which Darlene can work. The files may be moved by either Alice and Frank -- the smokers -- or other staff who normally perform heavy lifting and moving. Since the old smoke smell permeates everything, including the files, in the file room, the files should be moved to an exceptionally airy area. After providing the files in a smoke-free area, Renfold should tell Darlene that he has done the best to accommodate her, that the report must be completed ASAP or she will risk...
After Darlene finishes her work for the report, Renfold should fulfill his promise and have all documents refiled in newer, smoke-smell-free files.
3. Describe the policy on smoking that you would recommend to Redwood Associates
The law requires provision of a smoke-free area for employees who wish to have one; simultaneously, there is no law against smoking in the workplace. In addition, banning smoking altogether could mean eliminating some very talented employees who happen to smoke. Consequently, Redwood Associates should provide a mostly-smoke-free environment while also providing an area in which people can smoke. If the smoking area is within the building, it should be distant enough from other areas so that smoke and smoke smell cannot permeate the smoke-free areas; in addition, the internal smoke area should have a separate ventilation system so the smoke and smoke smell is not ventilated into smoke-free areas. If, on the other hand, the smoke area is located outside the building, provisions should be made for shelter so that smokers can use the smoke area in all seasons and weather conditions.
4. Explain how this case would change if what bothers Darlene is not old smoke but the smell of Alice's perfume or Frank's body odor
Alice's perfume and/or Frank's body order do not have the currently visceral and legal implications of cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke. While Darlene is entitled by law to a smoke-free work area, she is not currently entitled to a scent-free work area. Nevertheless, the problematic effects of workplace scents have been discussed for decades (Winterbauer & Diamond P.L.L.C.,…
