P&G workers fight firing over lewd and off-color emails
Published: October 7, 2009
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
e-mail this
share thisNearly 30 former Procter & Gamble workers who were fired for e-mailing pictures of naked people and off-color jokes about President Obama through the company's computers are fighting to collect unemployment benefits, saying they didn't do anything wrong because "everyone else" did it, too.
At a hearing Friday in South Scranton, the company's attorney, Ben Josielevski of Scranton, said the workers broke harassment and discrimination policies that are laid out in the company's business conduct manual, which employees are required to sign.
Twenty-nine workers at the Procter & Gamble plant in Washington Twp. near Mehoopany were fired in two rounds in July and August.
Anthony Pawluck of Greenfield Twp., who was fired July 8 after seven years at the plant, said at his hearing before Barry Chromey, the unemployment compensation referee, that he "never actually received it (the handbook)."
"Did you ever think you were violating company policy?" asked his attorney, Paul Jennings of Scranton.
"No," said Pawluck. "It was the norm. I got e-mails from some of my bosses." He said they were not fired.
Pawluck said he forwarded the e-mails to others as a way to keep morale up at the plant.
Chromey didn't seem swayed by the explanation.
"I think a box of doughnuts would have been much better for morale," Chromey said.
Chromey will decide whether Pawluck engaged in "willful misconduct," a finding that will determine if Pawluck is entitled to receive unemployment benefits.
Among the pictures presented at the hearing was one of the White House with a watermelon patch on the front lawn and the caption, "There goes the neighborhood." Other e-mails featured assorted pictures of people in various stages of undress, some of whom were riding bicycles, others who were passed out or displaying detailed tattoos on their genitals.
Throughout the hearing, Jennings asked Stephen O'Brien, the company's employee relations manager, if anyone had filed a complaint over the e-mails, and he said "No." Jennings asked why management at the plant didn't warn the employees about the e-mails before firing them.
Jennings argued that since no one complained, there was no harassment and no reason why Mr. Pawluck and the others should have been fired.
Chromey, who drummed his fingers on the desk while listening to that argument, said the company's harassment policy was put in place to protect itself from lawsuits brought by employees who were harassed on the job.
Josielevski said the company's handbook tells employees to treat other workers with respect and to use the e-mails only for company business.
