Phoenix ETH 321 – The doctrine of employment

The doctrine of “employment at will” and public policy often conflict. Consider the case of Brundridge v. Fluor Federal Services, Inc., 164 Wash. 2d 432 (2008) (here is a link to the text of the case: http://www.leagle.com/decision/200142435P3d389_1421.xml/BRUNDRIDGE%20v.%20FLUOR%20FEDERAL%20SERVICES%20INC.) To summarize the case, a crew of five pipe fitters was employed by a contractor and was ordered to put in a valve on a transfer pipe to a high-level nuclear waste tank. However, the crew had sufficient experience to realize that the wrong valve had been ordered. The valve to be used was rated at 1,975 pounds per square inch (psi) in a system of pipes that was to be tested at 2,235 psi. The crew was concerned that the underrated valve could cause nuclear contamination and injury to workers. They refused the orders of their supervisor to install the underrated valve and stopped work at the site until management relented and ordered the sturdier valve to be installed. One month later the company terminated the whole crew, citing financial cutbacks in the company.1. What exceptions displacing the employment-at-will doctrine could the pipe fitters assert?2. What theory would be best advanced by the pipe fitters? What do you think?