Throughout this paper, I can establish the issues raised in the assigned state of affairs and describe what arguments I'd make if I was representing the union in arbitration and if I used to be representing the employer in arbitration.
From the union's perspective, the issues raised in the assigned situation are wrongfully accusing workers of theft; termination of staff while not a simply cause; Bonnie's termination is severely harsh as compared to her ten year model record of employment; denial of the rights of the employees to possess union representation at a disciplinary hearing, and failure to supply evidence of employees' wrongdoing.
[ advertisement ]
"Less is no more" as it pertains to raising problems during arbitration. Like a sensible advocate, I might strive to raise as many issues as arguably possible. But, I'm of the realization that qualitative problems trump quantitative issues. Like a pit bull, I'd go for my opponent's jugular, and push the envelope as a lot of as I can. Of course, I'd endeavor to neither compromise my integrity or the legal code/code of ethics (as an attorney).
As the old chestnut goes, "1st things...first!" Therefore, I would allow the right procedure to run its course: look steward/griever communicates with the manager (in question ). If unable to achieve a resolution, a union official communicates with a higher manager. If still unable to succeed in a resolution, the union president would communicate with an executive. If all tries at reaching a resolution to the present point fail, then the employer and I would appear before an arbitrator as per our contractual agreement on Grievance and Arbitration: if the parties are unable to resolve any grievance, either party could submit the issue to the Arbitrator for final and binding resolution.
After the four steps 'dance' illustrated within the higher than paragraph, I'd let the 'dogs loose' by arguing that the staff failed to steal the shirts. I might underline this argument with the failure of the employer to provide evidence via a camera recording or workers' confession to refute my claim. So, I might be able to claim that the manager breached the contract, in specific, the Just Cause: no employee could be disciplined or discharged without good cause. I'd emphasize not solely the act of the breach but the harshness, too. For example, I'd accentuate the model record of employment that Bonnie had maintained over a period of 10 years whereas waving her personnel file as an acceptable prop. Hammering the nail, I might declare that primarily based on the proof it can only be concluded that the workers, especially Bonnie, were terminated with extreme prejudice. For good live, I would have a say 'the denial of requested union representation' by the manager at the disciplinary meeting though the employer contains a legitimate defense (can be mentioned, later).
In reference to the worker handbook containing the provision stating that theft is a terminable offence that was given to Clyde however not given to Bonnie as a result of of her earlier date of hire; I'd deem it negligible as a result of of the following reasons. Initial, the collective bargaining agreement may be a contract whereas an employee handbook is not a contract. Of such, management reserves the correct to vary the handbook's material at anytime as per the disclaimer in the back and front of the employees' handbook. Thus, within the view of the union, an employees' handbook is null and void since it is not a provision of the collective bargaining agreement. On the other hand, theft is against the law and ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for breaking the law. Howbeit, the preceding sentence is moot as a result of the employees are not guilty of theft. If not, management can have to make a case against my position by 1st providing simple proof supporting its claim.
From the employer's perspective, the problems raised in the assigned situation are the staff were caught stealing, and theft is a simply cause for termination. For theatrical (but strategic) effect, I would gift the worker handbook containing the provision stating that theft may be a terminable offence; given to Clyde upon his hire. As for Bonnie, I would stress the criminality of the offence - 'stealing is against the law' - a criminal/prosecutable act was committed on the corporate's premises as witnessed by the management upon viewing a camera recording.
More thus, Clyde's termination isn't severely harsh as a result of of the long paper path since his recent hiring. Like in the game of baseball, 'three strikes you're out' is relevant in Clyde's case. Additionally, management reserves the proper to succeed in a decision on disciplinary matters despite the absence of a requested union representative as per labor law. For instance, management is allowed to succeed in a call even although the investigated party (the fired employees) refused to participate while not union illustration at said disciplinary meeting.
Anyway, it may be averred that the union representative wasn't immediately obtainable as a result of he didn't contact us until the following day.
Like the union's counterpart, management's advocate would apply the "Less is less" model because it pertains to passionately raising issues during arbitration. I might mirror my adversary in all aspects described in the third paragraph of this paper.
After the four steps dance described within the fifth paragraph, I might effectively argue the problems raised in paragraphs six and seven, respectively.
The Arbitrator would additional than doubtless rule within the favor of the union as a result of of the lack of evidence: neither camera recording nor employees' confession. Therefore, the Arbitrator would be forced to grant the union the advantage of the doubt. Someone may counter that Clyde's termination would inhibition whether or not Bonnie is reinstated because of her lengthy model employment in comparison to Clyde's unsuccessful and short employment record. To the contrary, Clyde and Bonnie would be 'in the identical boat' (nope, not the getaway carJ) as a result of the lack of evidence makes his checkered past not relevant to his reinstatement in his occupation. The late nice Barrister Johnnie Cochran would put it best: "if you don't have the evidence to show... then you've got to let my shoppers go."
In conclusion, I identified the problems raised in the assigned state of affairs and described what arguments I'd make if I used to be representing the union in arbitration and if I used to be representing the employer in arbitration.
Author Resource:-
Bob has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Labor Law (Legal), you can also check out his latest website about:
