NEED HELP WITH A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS. NEED IT ASAP!

lion Rugged Trucks sold during the critical fifteen-year period are still on the road. I'm really not sure how I feel about that." "However," he said, "there is more to the story. Twenty-seven years ago when Gigantic Motors first drew up plans for this vehicle, it took unusual steps to produce the safest, most fuel-efficient, and driver-friendly truck of its type. It searched for a structural design subcontractor capable of sharing the short- term financial burdens of a wholly new construction program that would take short-term losses, but realize long-term profits after the reputation of the truck was established. It hooked up with Dynamic Motors' Fuel Development Divi- sion, with its excellent reputation for structural design, and this group became the desired subcontractor. Under the agreement between the two companies, Gigantic had the primary authority to furnish the overall design criteria and to amend design decisions. Dynamic's role was to create a design for the engine and the way to get fuel to it that would satisfy all the stipulated criteria. The fuel tanks mounted outside the side frame rails were considered, even then, to be a possible problem in the event of side impacts, but they thought that they had successfully designed around that problem by fastening the fuel tanks so that they would be thrown off the vehicle in the event of side impact. We now know that the trucks lacked a reliable fail-safe unlocking system for the tanks upon impact, but tests at the time indicated that it was a fail-safe system. They convinced the Gigantic brass of this design, and a year later Gigantic awarded Dynamic Motors' Fuel Development Division a contract to build the new fuel and engine design that it had created and that Gigantic had enthusiastically approved. Both companies had, on the whole, done a fantastic job in moving the industry to a far higher level of safety in trucksas the safety record shows quite conclusively. In bumper design, rollover-prevention, cabin safety, and so on, no other truck on the road was as safe in those years." Upon hearing this, Jonathan asked Cochrane whether what RT had done during the critical fifteen-year period had violated any laws. He responded, "No, no. All Rugged Trucks sold in those years met the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's performance standards and were in full compli- ance with all other state and federal regulations. In fact, the Department of Transportation has a specific safety standard for side-impact crashes, and our trucks have always met that standard. You know, the trucks are far from unsafe on any relative scale of safety. Rugged Trucks' overall safety record surpasses that of the other comparable trucks on the market and, because of their larger size, significantly exceeds that of virtually all passenger cars other than Volvo and Mercedes. The models prior to ten years ago are more vulnerable to fire in case of side impact than are other comparable vehicles, but in virtually all other ways that I have been able to investigate, they are safer than our competitors' trucks-again, as the record shows and every rating service has acknowledged." Jonathan then asked, "So what did you do?" Cochrane replied, "I talked to Dick about it. That's Richard Daystream, our chief safety engineer. He told me that six years ago the company had dis- cussed the possibility of recalling the vulnerable models, but the idea had been rejected. He said that the brass had determined that such a recall would be too expensive and was simply not justified in light of our generally superior safety record. I didn't stop there, however. Last week, I asked for an appointment with Helen Noel, RT's vice president in charge of safety and public relations. She saw me on Tuesday, and I told her my concerns. She was actually quite sympathetic and thanked me for coming in. She said RT wanted to encourage its employees to feel free to bring their concerns to upper management. She told me the company was aware of the situation and had given serious coneid. eration to recalling all vulnerable models. However, the only way to protect the fuel tanks was by building thick-gauge steel cages around them. The compa had determined that this would cost between $750 million and $1.5 billion, de pending on how many of the trucks were brought in. This expenditure was likely to have a major negative impact on the company's profitability and this combined with the bad publicity, could severely damage its position in the highly competitive light truck market. Further, according to the Department of Transportation statistics, taking this step was likely to save only 8 lives over the course of the trucks' remaining time on the road, and even this statistic as- sumed no premature retiring of or fatal damage to the still existing trucks. Given these facts, the company decided that it could not justify taking such drastic action simply to make what was already a safe vehicle even safer." "When the meeting was over, she thanked me for my concern, but in- structed me not to discuss the problem with anyone, either inside or outside of the company. As she put it, 'You know how it is when something like this gets out. The press has a field day scaring the public for no good reason. The last thing we need right now is a public relations disaster.' That's why I'm telling you this in confidence. I'm afraid that if the company finds out I've told others about the fuel tanks, I'll lose my job." After hearing this, Jonathan said, "I see why you are so concerned. Do you think Roykirk knows about this?" referring to Jackson Roykirk, RT's CEO. Cochrane responded, "I don't know, but I'm certainly not going to find Out." When Jonathan asked what he meant, Cochrane said, "Look, I've done as much as I'm going to do. Noel told me to keep my mouth shut, and that's what I intend to do. I like my job, and I like my paycheck even more. We just ght a house, and Nancy's pregnant. This is no time for me to be looking for work. If the powers-that-be think the company did the right thing, I'll just have to accept that. Regardless of my personal feelings, it's not my responsibil- ity to make company policy or go over somebody's authority." When Jonathan returned to his office after lunch, he found himself won- dering whether Cochrane was doing the right thing. He couldn't get rid of vi. sions of the families of the eight drivers likely to die in accidents. He was pretty angry at company officials who, once the inherent weakness was demonstrated, did not take immediate steps to correct it six years ago. "A few drivers have died since then," he thought, and it seems inevitable that, in the twenty years ahead of us, others will die. But what, really, is the difference between the re- view six years ago and now?" Jonathan began to wonder whether he should keep his promise to keep this secret a secret 38 Chapter One Employees and the Workplace An Explosive Problem at Gigantic Motors 39 Several weeks later Tuff went before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to plead his case. The NLRB heard his full story, together with the representations of the company. The board determined that Blue Mountain was within its legal rights to fire him. The board found that whistle-blowers are legally protected only if they engage in concerted activity together with their fellow workers. Because Tuff had acted alone, on behalf of other guards but not with them, he was not protected under the National Labor Relations Act. However, an NLRB spokesperson stated in a public interview that the board made no moral judgment on either the employer's or the employee's con- duct. Moral behavior, he said, was not at stake in the NLRB decision. An Explosive Problem at Gigantic Motors Jonathan Archer graduated from Christopher Pike School of Business and was happy to obtain a position in the marketing department of the Rugged Trucks Company, the light truck division of the Gigantic Motors Corporation. His main project over the last couple of years has been to expand the market for the company's light pickup truck beyond the lower-middle-class, blue-collar cus- tomers who have traditionally been the main purchasers of the trucks. During this time Jonathan met and became friendly with Zefrem Cochrane, an engi- neer in the design department who joined the company around the same time Jonathan did. For the past year, Jonathan has been having lunch with Cochrane in RT's cafeteria several times a week. When Jonathan met him for lunch two weeks ago, it was clear that Zefrem was bothered and distracted by something. When Jonathan first asked what was the matter, Cochrane declined to comment, but when Jonathan pressed him, he said, "I found something out that has me a little worried. I'm willing to tell you about it, but only in the strictest confidence." After Jonathan assured him that the secret would never go anywhere, Cochrane told Jonathan the following story. "You know that we've been working on the design for the new-model- year trucks. Recently, we've been trying to decide where to position the fuel tanks to enhance the trucks' handling in off-road driving conditions. Last week, I reviewed the records of each of the design teams for the last twenty-five model years. In doing so, I learned that for fifteen years in a row, ending ten years ago, all Rugged Trucks had their fuel tanks mounted outside the side frame rails that protected the trucks in case of side impact. This seemed dan- gerous to me, so I did some further checking." "I found out that positioning the fuel tanks outside the frame rails made the fuel tanks more likely to explode in side-impact collisions. In fact, the rea- son they were moved inside the rails ten years ago, and ever since, was because safety research had shown that in the previous fifteen years, the positioning of the trucks' fuel system had led to approximately 50 side-impact deaths and an- other 110 personal injuries. Further, this design was unique to Rugged Trucks. No other domestically manufactured light truck had the fuel tank mounted in this position. What worries me is that approximately 6.3 million of the 10 mil- This case was prepared by John Hasnas and revised by Tom L. Beauchamp. Not to be duplicated without permission of the holder of the copyright 2003 by John Hasnas, George Mason Uni- versity Law School 36 Chapter One Employees and the Workplace