Whistleblowing and Wood Dust

The case study presented speaks to what the obligations of an employee are in this situation. Correspondingly, we should use the two step-procedure outlined in the book: first, identify the relevant obligations and then try to decide which should be emphasized. As an employee of Wooden, I have clear obligations to the firm and to act in the best interests of my employer (Shaw, 2014, p. 365). The extent to which an individual is obligated to feel loyalty is disputed, but nonetheless actions taken as an employee are obligated to be good for the firm. Additionally, as a human being, I have moral obligations to my coworkers to practice behavior-based safety and not knowingly allow them to come to harm, in the same way that if I saw a drowning child and neglected to save her, I would be at fault. Karen Parse has explicitly requested my help, highlighting this obligation. If an explosion occurs, my coworkers and I would be in physical danger.

In order to best evaluate the decision of whether or not to report the collection of wood dust in the factory, it is important to first determine what the possible consequences are and their likelihood. Dust explosions occur due to the increase in surface area of the wood in small particles of dust, creating enough access for oxygen for unrestricted burning(Eckhoff, 2003, p. 2). They are powerful enough that if they occur inside equipment or in a factory, the loss of life and property can be considerable. The fact that Karen saw sparks is concerning, in that while the minimum energy required for the ignition of a dust cloud varies, a fairly low energy spark is capable of igniting a dust cloud (Eckhoff, 2003, p. 15). Between 1900-1956, wood and bark caused 162 explosions in the United States, with 38 fatalities and 160 injuries. It also resulted in $11.4 million dollars in damage (uninflated) (Eckhoff, 2003, p. 21). While the scenario is too vague to be able to evaluate the specific risk of an explosion, all three elements necessary (fuel, oxidant, ignition source) are all present(Amyotte & Eckhoff, 2010). Additionally, good housekeeping –or simply removing dust deposits—is .an easy way to minimize the risk of explosion (Frank, 2004). So, the hazard is real and the prevention is fairly straightforward; a concentrated clean up would be able to severely reduce the damage.

The fact that the safety officer asserted flatly that “everyone knows that wood dust isn’t explosive” is deeply concerning. This indicates that the person whose main obligation is preserving the safety of the organization is not aware of the fairly common phenomenon of dust explosions. There have been recent highly publicized dust explosions and the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board cites wood dust as a common cause of explosions (Amyotte & Eckhoff, 2010). This also makes suspect his promise to clean the plant, particularly when Alex Riveria, the Area Manager, claims there is no dangerous system here and cites the two day stoppage as a reason not to clean the facility. One could easily see internal inertia being sufficient to block any action. If I contacted OSHA, the harms that could result are a two day clean up, an annoying investigation, and the possibility of losing my job. Littlebury is a small enough town and I have already made myself known to be concerned; Tony Lord, the owner, was even vaguely threatening. Two days lost work would be an economic hit to the employees and the town at large, but not nearly to the degree a possible explosion would. Additionally, I would have recourses if they fired me for an OSHA complaint, though they would be onerous and likely personally difficult. Additionally, since the town is so small, other families might be angry at mine for the two days lost wages.

Given the possible consequences, I would report the unsafe conditions to OSHA in a confidential, signed complaint. The company does not seem to be aware of the extent of their danger, and it appears to be in their own best interests to clean up; an explosion or fire would cause considerable damage to the plant. Additionally, the loss of life and limb are a sufficient moral harm in themselves. Those outweigh the possible harms of two days lost work. This action does not fall underneath the definition of whistleblowing offered in the textbook, as all employees have a legal right to file a complaint with OSHA; this action is not outside normal channels (Shaw, 2014, p. 374). Even if it were whistleblowing, it would be morally justified by the standards offered in the textbook, as it would be done to avoid the harm to the company and employees, internal channels would attempted, and there has been care in analyzing the danger.

References

Amyotte, P. R., & Eckhoff, R. K. (2010). Dust explosion causation, prevention and mitigation: An overview. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 17(1), 15-28.

Eckhoff, R. (2003). Dust Explosions in the Process Industries: Identification, Assessment and Control of Dust Hazards: Access Online via Elsevier.

Frank, W. L. (2004). Dust explosion prevention and the critical importance of housekeeping. Process safety progress, 23(3), 175-184.

Shaw, W. H. (2014). Business Ethics (8th ed.): Wadsworth.