Lessons from Chicago workplace murders?

Reuters reports: “Ex-Worker Kills Six at Chicago Auto Parts Warehouse.”

The murderer had been fired six months ago for poor performance — being late, not showing up at work, and causing trouble at work. He had recently made threatening telephone calls to one of the company’s owners. The phone calls were not reported to police.

He “had been arrested a dozen times in the past 14 years on various charges, including illegal possession of a weapon, domestic battery and assault. He was convicted in 1989 of illegal possession of a gun and received a year’s probation.”

The story recounts other workplace mass murders in recent years:

July 1999 — nine people at two Atlanta brokerage offices by a stock trader, who earlier killed his wife and two children.

December 2003 — seven people at a Xerox Corp. facility in Honolulu by a copier repairman.

February 2001 — four people at a suburban Chicago Navistar factory by a former worker who was about to start a prison term.

How preventable were these tragedies? What kind of liabilities may these employers face? What can employers do to protect themselves and their employees from such senseless violence?

Tough questions. Some suggested answers:

First, while people bent on murder will find a way, they don’t have to be allowed to do it on company property. Security and video surveillance must be in place to prevent and deter unauthorized persons, including former employees, from entering factories, offices, etc. Facilities like retail stores, which require open public access, cannot bar access, but can take other security measures.

Second, the threatening calls should have been reported to the police. While law enforcement may be reluctant to act on “mere” threats, at a minimum this would have served as a “CYA” measure to defend against the inevitable claims of negligence that will be forthcoming from victims’ families.

Third, the employee’s criminal record highlights the importance of prehiring background checks. While there are some legal limitations on the acquisition and use of the relevant information, the failure to even attempt to obtain it may be the basis for a negligent hiring claim in such a situation.

Finally, treatment of terminated employees may make a difference. Consider allowing resignation, neutral reference (name, rank, and dates of employment only) and not contesting unemployment as means of lessening the economic hardship of a termination. While these mass murdering employees may have snapped regardless, the stress of uncompensated long-term unemployment certainly doesn’t help. Of course, that’s no reason to keep an employee who doesn’t measure up to reasonable expectations.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Copyright Employmentblawg Designed by Weblogian