Respected sirs This a recent development there was an I house training programme going on for operators regarding 5S how to reduce cost on rework suggestions were also invited from the Operators one of Operator who has been with us from past 32 yrs was discussing about a safety concern which seems to be having side effects on his health and also told the host that this issue was noticed a year back and brought to notice of concern authorities but to till date no action has been taken .At this point of time he pointed out to the concerned authority who was also incendently sitting in the training for this there was a very rough and weird reply from the authority which provoked altercation this authority did not stop he went to the extent of asking the Operator to leave the training hall which engraged all the others however the Training was concluded. This Operator does not have a black remark in his career now how to go about should we warn both of them or have a soft corner for the person who has been with the company for these long Years .Concerding mutual respect should we warn the authority or the Operator. Pls suggest.The Industry is a chemical one dealing with highly dangerous chemicals.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
4From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
This is a delicate situation that requires careful handling. Here are some steps you can take:
1. Conduct an Investigation: Start by conducting a thorough investigation into the incident. Gather all the facts, talk to witnesses, and document everything. This will help you understand the nature and severity of the altercation.
2. Review the Safety Concern: The operator's safety concern should be addressed immediately. If it's affecting his health and potentially the health of others, it needs to be prioritized. Engage the appropriate safety and health officers to investigate and rectify the issue.
3. Address the Authority's Behavior: The authority's behavior, as described, seems inappropriate. If after the investigation it's found that the authority was indeed disrespectful, appropriate action should be taken. This could range from a formal warning to mandatory training on workplace etiquette and respect.
4. Support the Operator: The operator has been with the company for a long time and doesn't have any negative remarks in his career. His concerns should be taken seriously. If he was unfairly treated, he should be reassured that the company values his contributions and that his safety and well-being are important.
5. Communicate: Once the investigation is complete and actions have been decided, communicate with all parties involved. This includes the operator, the authority, and the rest of the team. Transparency is key to maintaining trust within the team.
6. Prevent Future Incidents: Finally, take steps to prevent such incidents in the future. This could include training on conflict resolution, respect in the workplace, and proper communication of safety concerns.
Remember, it's crucial to handle this situation in a fair and transparent manner to maintain a healthy work environment.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. Conduct an Investigation: Start by conducting a thorough investigation into the incident. Gather all the facts, talk to witnesses, and document everything. This will help you understand the nature and severity of the altercation.
2. Review the Safety Concern: The operator's safety concern should be addressed immediately. If it's affecting his health and potentially the health of others, it needs to be prioritized. Engage the appropriate safety and health officers to investigate and rectify the issue.
3. Address the Authority's Behavior: The authority's behavior, as described, seems inappropriate. If after the investigation it's found that the authority was indeed disrespectful, appropriate action should be taken. This could range from a formal warning to mandatory training on workplace etiquette and respect.
4. Support the Operator: The operator has been with the company for a long time and doesn't have any negative remarks in his career. His concerns should be taken seriously. If he was unfairly treated, he should be reassured that the company values his contributions and that his safety and well-being are important.
5. Communicate: Once the investigation is complete and actions have been decided, communicate with all parties involved. This includes the operator, the authority, and the rest of the team. Transparency is key to maintaining trust within the team.
6. Prevent Future Incidents: Finally, take steps to prevent such incidents in the future. This could include training on conflict resolution, respect in the workplace, and proper communication of safety concerns.
Remember, it's crucial to handle this situation in a fair and transparent manner to maintain a healthy work environment.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Seena741,
The Topic you discussed is very sensitive and alarming.
Things are not good as a senior operators over 32+years working is misbehaved in public by his senior officer is nothing but misconduct of severe nature.
There is no need of training programme on 5 S, where suggestions provided by the working employees were treated badly by the management.
The authority who did the misbehave with the Operator would have been dealt with disciplinary action, if I was the HR. Being an HR you should bring the incident to the notice of higher management.
Further, you need to investigate into the point of hazards or safety,if really exists or not. In the post you mentioned that the Operator was telling the operation affects the Health. Therefore, there exists Operational Health Hazards. Thereby you need to notify the matter to the Factory Manager and the Occupier also. You can talk to Factory Inspector in a formal way.
There is substantial truth is existing in the complaint of the Operator, the reaction of the authority is obvious because the complaint goes against him.
The HR has to look into and submit a report to the MD & CEO for an action over the operational issue and action on the Person-authority. The operator should be rewarded sweetly.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Topic you discussed is very sensitive and alarming.
Things are not good as a senior operators over 32+years working is misbehaved in public by his senior officer is nothing but misconduct of severe nature.
There is no need of training programme on 5 S, where suggestions provided by the working employees were treated badly by the management.
The authority who did the misbehave with the Operator would have been dealt with disciplinary action, if I was the HR. Being an HR you should bring the incident to the notice of higher management.
Further, you need to investigate into the point of hazards or safety,if really exists or not. In the post you mentioned that the Operator was telling the operation affects the Health. Therefore, there exists Operational Health Hazards. Thereby you need to notify the matter to the Factory Manager and the Occupier also. You can talk to Factory Inspector in a formal way.
There is substantial truth is existing in the complaint of the Operator, the reaction of the authority is obvious because the complaint goes against him.
The HR has to look into and submit a report to the MD & CEO for an action over the operational issue and action on the Person-authority. The operator should be rewarded sweetly.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Seena74,
The analysis of your post is as below:
1. In your post, you have written: One of the operators who has been with us from past 32 yrs was discussing about a safety concern which seems to be having side effects on his health and also told the host that this issue was noticed a year back and brought to notice of concern authorities but to till date no action has been taken.
Reply: - There are three types of conflicts: process conflict, task conflict, and relationship conflict. To know the details of each conflict, you can click here. From the description you have given, it can be deduced that the 'process conflict' took place in your company.
2. At this point in time, he pointed out to the concerned authority, who was also incidentally sitting in the training.
Reply: - I wish the senior operator had not pointed out the workplace flaw in the presence of the other participants, and also the senior who was expected to correct the anomaly.
3. For this, there was a very rough and weird reply from the authority, which provoked an altercation. This authority did not stop he went to the extent of asking the Operator to leave the training hall, which enraged all the others. However, the Training was concluded.
Reply: - When the senior operator directly pointed out the flaw, the authority concerned considered it an effrontery. He immediately retaliated, and an altercation ensued. Thus, the process conflict escalated to the relationship conflict. The senior exercised his positional power and told the senior operator to quit the training hall. Though the other operators were incensed by the senior's highhandedness, they bit the bullet. They did not confront the senior for the unfair treatment given to the senior operator. Their accommodating behaviour did not allow the situation to get out of hand.
4. Considering mutual respect, should we warn the authority or the Operator?
Reply: - The senior operator and the authority both should be warned. The former for not showing discretion while exposing the workplace shortcomings. If the unsafe working conditions existed at the workplace and if the action was not taken, then what follow-up did he do? He should have escalated the matter as per the procedure. However, the authority deserves a severe reprimand. The managerial propriety demands not getting provoked. However, the senior was not only provoked but also retaliated in full public view and by doing so, he has set a bad example for the juniors. His behaviour during the training has brought to the fore his behavioural shortcomings. He needs to be trained on anger management, interpersonal skills, assertive skills, etc.
Final comments: - While analysing the incident, we should restrict our attention to what happened and why it happened, and not on the parties involved in the incident or their behaviour. The root cause of this incident is unsafe working conditions at the workplace, which were neglected for a long time. In such a case, what were the very senior authorities, like the Directors or the General Managers were doing? Why did they not remove those unsafe working conditions? What was the role of the Safety Officer? Did he also keep quiet?
In June and July 2025, several accidents occurred in chemical units in India. The most significant incident was a fire at a Sigachi Industries pharmaceutical unit in Telangana on June 30, resulting in at least 40 fatalities and over 30 injuries. A separate fire in a Delhi chemical factory on June 25 caused four deaths and three injuries. Even though yours is a chemical manufacturing unit, why does your company not learn lessons from these accidents? Is your company waiting to learn a lesson after a tragedy? Why does the top leadership not show due sensitivity and take corrective action? Their indifference is akin to sitting on a tinder box!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
The analysis of your post is as below:
1. In your post, you have written: One of the operators who has been with us from past 32 yrs was discussing about a safety concern which seems to be having side effects on his health and also told the host that this issue was noticed a year back and brought to notice of concern authorities but to till date no action has been taken.
Reply: - There are three types of conflicts: process conflict, task conflict, and relationship conflict. To know the details of each conflict, you can click here. From the description you have given, it can be deduced that the 'process conflict' took place in your company.
2. At this point in time, he pointed out to the concerned authority, who was also incidentally sitting in the training.
Reply: - I wish the senior operator had not pointed out the workplace flaw in the presence of the other participants, and also the senior who was expected to correct the anomaly.
3. For this, there was a very rough and weird reply from the authority, which provoked an altercation. This authority did not stop he went to the extent of asking the Operator to leave the training hall, which enraged all the others. However, the Training was concluded.
Reply: - When the senior operator directly pointed out the flaw, the authority concerned considered it an effrontery. He immediately retaliated, and an altercation ensued. Thus, the process conflict escalated to the relationship conflict. The senior exercised his positional power and told the senior operator to quit the training hall. Though the other operators were incensed by the senior's highhandedness, they bit the bullet. They did not confront the senior for the unfair treatment given to the senior operator. Their accommodating behaviour did not allow the situation to get out of hand.
4. Considering mutual respect, should we warn the authority or the Operator?
Reply: - The senior operator and the authority both should be warned. The former for not showing discretion while exposing the workplace shortcomings. If the unsafe working conditions existed at the workplace and if the action was not taken, then what follow-up did he do? He should have escalated the matter as per the procedure. However, the authority deserves a severe reprimand. The managerial propriety demands not getting provoked. However, the senior was not only provoked but also retaliated in full public view and by doing so, he has set a bad example for the juniors. His behaviour during the training has brought to the fore his behavioural shortcomings. He needs to be trained on anger management, interpersonal skills, assertive skills, etc.
Final comments: - While analysing the incident, we should restrict our attention to what happened and why it happened, and not on the parties involved in the incident or their behaviour. The root cause of this incident is unsafe working conditions at the workplace, which were neglected for a long time. In such a case, what were the very senior authorities, like the Directors or the General Managers were doing? Why did they not remove those unsafe working conditions? What was the role of the Safety Officer? Did he also keep quiet?
In June and July 2025, several accidents occurred in chemical units in India. The most significant incident was a fire at a Sigachi Industries pharmaceutical unit in Telangana on June 30, resulting in at least 40 fatalities and over 30 injuries. A separate fire in a Delhi chemical factory on June 25 caused four deaths and three injuries. Even though yours is a chemical manufacturing unit, why does your company not learn lessons from these accidents? Is your company waiting to learn a lesson after a tragedy? Why does the top leadership not show due sensitivity and take corrective action? Their indifference is akin to sitting on a tinder box!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-Your analysis is quite comprehensive. However, the operator's safety concern should have been addressed promptly. It's crucial to prioritize safety in the workplace, especially in high-risk industries. (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
Dear respected members,
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have made a preliminary inquiry with the witnesses and this is what we have discovered.
A newly joined employee was given additional responsibilities for maintaining 5S Kaizen and lean management. He was asked to host a training on these subjects, which involved operators and their immediate supervisor. A senior manager, who was not involved with this training, attended it.
According to the witnesses, the senior manager\'s behavior was unacceptable. He was rude and asked an operator to leave the training hall. Consequently, others started to leave as well. The supervisor managed to convince the operators to stay and politely asked the senior manager to leave.
The operator, on the other hand, did not volunteer any suggestions after the host said that he would look into the feedback he had received. Other operators have reported that their health is deteriorating due to a certain chemical. Their concerns have been presented to the management several times. The previous GM of production has left, and we are unsure of his plans.
We have looked into the background of this operator and found that he is highly skilled and qualified, possessing an MBA in Human Resources.
We have decided to issue a warning to both parties. However, we are questioning whether it is right to warn both parties. Your advice would be appreciated.
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have made a preliminary inquiry with the witnesses and this is what we have discovered.
A newly joined employee was given additional responsibilities for maintaining 5S Kaizen and lean management. He was asked to host a training on these subjects, which involved operators and their immediate supervisor. A senior manager, who was not involved with this training, attended it.
According to the witnesses, the senior manager\'s behavior was unacceptable. He was rude and asked an operator to leave the training hall. Consequently, others started to leave as well. The supervisor managed to convince the operators to stay and politely asked the senior manager to leave.
The operator, on the other hand, did not volunteer any suggestions after the host said that he would look into the feedback he had received. Other operators have reported that their health is deteriorating due to a certain chemical. Their concerns have been presented to the management several times. The previous GM of production has left, and we are unsure of his plans.
We have looked into the background of this operator and found that he is highly skilled and qualified, possessing an MBA in Human Resources.
We have decided to issue a warning to both parties. However, we are questioning whether it is right to warn both parties. Your advice would be appreciated.
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The decision to issue warnings should be based on the severity of the misconduct, not tenure. Safety concerns must be addressed promptly. Good job on the preliminary inquiry. (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
Dear Seena741,
My reply is to your subsequent clarifying post (placed at serial number five).
In the fourth paragraph, you have written: The operator, on the other hand, did not volunteer any suggestions after the host said that he would look into the feedback he had received. If this were the situation, then he did not commit any misconduct and does not deserve any warning.
In my previous post, I already wrote that the senior manager deserves severe reprimand for failing to show managerial grace or poise.
Your reference to the senior operator's high-level skills and qualifications was unnecessary. While investigating or analysing the incident, we should focus on what happened or the organisational shortcomings, and not on the person's background.
The Larger Issue: - Thanks for the indecorous behaviour of the senior manager, the issue of unsafe working conditions, which has been lingering for long, has been brought to the fore. Because of the poor handling of certain chemicals, if the health of the workers has been deteriorating, why has corrective action not been taken?
The larger issue is to initiate corrective measures on a war footing. Assign the task to a responsible manager, make sufficient budgetary allocations, and fix the target date to remove those unsafe working conditions. The urgency of the creation of safe working conditions pales the issue of the warning letter to the senior manager into insignificance.
The incident also highlights an important organisational weakness: the failure of upward communication in the organisation. If the unsafe conditions prevailed at the workplace, and were reported by the workers to the higher authorities, did this news reach the MD's level? If not, then why? The real malaise is the disconnect of the top leadership with the ground realities. The sooner your organisation eradicates this organisational weakness, the better.
Even though the MD knew that certain chemicals were impacting the health of the workers, and if he did nothing, then God bless your organisation! The sooner you quit it, the better!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
My reply is to your subsequent clarifying post (placed at serial number five).
In the fourth paragraph, you have written: The operator, on the other hand, did not volunteer any suggestions after the host said that he would look into the feedback he had received. If this were the situation, then he did not commit any misconduct and does not deserve any warning.
In my previous post, I already wrote that the senior manager deserves severe reprimand for failing to show managerial grace or poise.
Your reference to the senior operator's high-level skills and qualifications was unnecessary. While investigating or analysing the incident, we should focus on what happened or the organisational shortcomings, and not on the person's background.
The Larger Issue: - Thanks for the indecorous behaviour of the senior manager, the issue of unsafe working conditions, which has been lingering for long, has been brought to the fore. Because of the poor handling of certain chemicals, if the health of the workers has been deteriorating, why has corrective action not been taken?
The larger issue is to initiate corrective measures on a war footing. Assign the task to a responsible manager, make sufficient budgetary allocations, and fix the target date to remove those unsafe working conditions. The urgency of the creation of safe working conditions pales the issue of the warning letter to the senior manager into insignificance.
The incident also highlights an important organisational weakness: the failure of upward communication in the organisation. If the unsafe conditions prevailed at the workplace, and were reported by the workers to the higher authorities, did this news reach the MD's level? If not, then why? The real malaise is the disconnect of the top leadership with the ground realities. The sooner your organisation eradicates this organisational weakness, the better.
Even though the MD knew that certain chemicals were impacting the health of the workers, and if he did nothing, then God bless your organisation! The sooner you quit it, the better!
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-Your response is accurate. Addressing safety concerns and improving working conditions should indeed be a priority over disciplinary actions. Good job! (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
This situation requires careful handling, considering the operator's long service and the authority's behavior. Here's a suggested approach:
Immediate Actions
1. Separate Discussions: Hold separate discussions with both the operator and the authority to understand their perspectives and calm the situation.
2. Acknowledge Operator's Concern: Acknowledge the operator's safety concern and assure that it will be addressed promptly, given the industry's hazardous nature.
3. Address Authority's Behavior: Address the authority's behavior, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a respectful and professional demeanor, especially in a training setting.
Investigation and Resolution
1. Investigate the Safety Concern: Investigate the safety concern raised by the operator and take necessary actions to mitigate the risk.
2. Review Previous Actions: Review why no action was taken on the operator's previous complaint and identify areas for improvement in the company's safety procedures.
3. Action Against Authority: Consider disciplinary action against the authority for their behavior, as it may have created a hostile environment and undermined the operator's willingness to raise concerns.
Long-Term Measures
1. Training on Communication: Provide training on effective communication, conflict resolution, and respect in the workplace for all employees, including authorities and supervisors.
2. Safety Culture: Foster a strong safety culture that encourages employees to raise concerns without fear of retribution.
3. Grievance Mechanism: Establish a clear grievance mechanism for employees to report safety concerns and ensure that these concerns are addressed promptly.
Considerations
1. Operator's Service: While the operator's long service is commendable, it should not influence the company's response to the situation. The focus should be on addressing the safety concern and ensuring a respectful work environment.
2. Authority's Accountability: The authority's behavior should be addressed, regardless of their position, to maintain a culture of respect and professionalism.
By taking these steps, the company can address the immediate issue, improve its safety culture, and promote a more respectful and professional work environment [1].
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
Immediate Actions
1. Separate Discussions: Hold separate discussions with both the operator and the authority to understand their perspectives and calm the situation.
2. Acknowledge Operator's Concern: Acknowledge the operator's safety concern and assure that it will be addressed promptly, given the industry's hazardous nature.
3. Address Authority's Behavior: Address the authority's behavior, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a respectful and professional demeanor, especially in a training setting.
Investigation and Resolution
1. Investigate the Safety Concern: Investigate the safety concern raised by the operator and take necessary actions to mitigate the risk.
2. Review Previous Actions: Review why no action was taken on the operator's previous complaint and identify areas for improvement in the company's safety procedures.
3. Action Against Authority: Consider disciplinary action against the authority for their behavior, as it may have created a hostile environment and undermined the operator's willingness to raise concerns.
Long-Term Measures
1. Training on Communication: Provide training on effective communication, conflict resolution, and respect in the workplace for all employees, including authorities and supervisors.
2. Safety Culture: Foster a strong safety culture that encourages employees to raise concerns without fear of retribution.
3. Grievance Mechanism: Establish a clear grievance mechanism for employees to report safety concerns and ensure that these concerns are addressed promptly.
Considerations
1. Operator's Service: While the operator's long service is commendable, it should not influence the company's response to the situation. The focus should be on addressing the safety concern and ensuring a respectful work environment.
2. Authority's Accountability: The authority's behavior should be addressed, regardless of their position, to maintain a culture of respect and professionalism.
By taking these steps, the company can address the immediate issue, improve its safety culture, and promote a more respectful and professional work environment [1].
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-Your approach is comprehensive and aligns with best HR practices. It's crucial to maintain a respectful work environment and address safety concerns promptly. Well done! (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-Your response is accurate. The HR should indeed investigate the safety concern and report to higher management. Misconduct should be addressed promptly. Good job! (1 Acknowledge point)