1. Describe the issues in the instance
On November 2. 2006 Journeyman Mechanic Keith Walton was discharged for go againsting the anti-nepotism policy of the Company. Mr. Walton had been employed by the Company since April 30. 1999. The Company has a rigorous standing no-relative regulation to forestall nepotism in the work topographic point that predates World War II but wasn’t officially published in the employee enchiridion until 1998. It states that employees may be discharged for misdemeanor of the anti-nepotism policy ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . On January 5. 1999 Mr. Walton applied for employment with the Company and in it he states that no relations of his are employed by the Company. He was unaware of his uncle being employed with the Company during the application procedure and found out some clip subsequently.
In visible radiation of this the Company has made it clear that he was non discharged for disproof of the employment application ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . The issue didn’t arise until October 2006. after 7 ? old ages of employment with the Company in which clip he worked his manner up to his current rubric. On October 30. 2006 he was confronted by Assistant Maintenance Superintendent Frank Hayes in which he wanted to happen out whether the accusals had cogency behind them or non. During such conversation Hayes reassures Mr. Walton by stating “no affair what happened. don’t worry” ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . 2. Supply a clear account of the union’s place
Although the Union can set up policy on hiring of relations and anti-nepotism. it does non hold the right to use policies in bargaining ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . In retrospect of this instance Union informants testified that there was small cognition of the Company’s “anti-nepotism” policy. The Company might claim that this is policy but when informants don’t even know the word and have to mention to a dictionary how can it be supported. There was besides limited entree to the General Operations Manuals where said policy is stated. This is another ground why this said policy can’t be supported when non all employees knew about it. It wasn’t until 2003 when the Company published “Your Career…Your Company. ” and the “Employment of Relatives” when such said policy was known. The Union stands that employees did non cognize of or understand that this was policy. The Company besides displays confusion on the employment of relative’s policy contained in the General Operations Manuals.
This is known by the demand of conferences among directors in order to happen out how such policy should be applied in state of affairss. A premier illustration of such confusion is displayed in the Geisbecker-Crawford instance. In this instance direction was non certain what the policy was. and where an employee was foremost assured that he did non go against the policy. so told that he did. and so retained in employment because the original reading of the Company was deemed to be right ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . A similar case occurred in the current state of affairs where Hayes reassured the grievant that “no matter what happened. don’t worry” ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . The Union stands that direction doesn’t to the full understand the policy and has a dual criterion by stating employees non to worry. Nepotism is defined as the pattern among those with power or influence of prefering relations or friends. particularly by giving them occupations ( Oxford University Press. 2010 ) . The Company has failed to show in any manner of how nepotism has been applied to the grievant.
The so called policy besides states “may go capable to immediate discharge on the first offense” ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . The Union stands that the word “may” establishes a pick which in manus the Company so chose to dispatch the grievant with no grounds to back up the claim of nepotism. The Union for all of the above grounds petitions that the board restore Keith W. Walton. an about 8 twelvemonth extremely rated veteran. to his occupation of Maintenance Mechanic at the Manatee Plant. and to do him whole for all rewards. senior status. benefits. and overtime hours denied him during the period of his improper discharge ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . 3. Explain management’s place
The Company reflects that Mr. Walton’s discharge was merely and without bias on the undermentioned evidences. When the Company added the subdivision entitled “Employment of Relatives. ” in June of 2003 it states that “ it is the policy of the Company non to use appliers who are relations of employees” ( U-3 ) . The Union tried in September 2003 during contract dialogues to alter the anti-nepotism policy ( Co. Brief. p. 13 ) by adding “relatives of employees shall non be denied the chance of working for the Company” ( C-15. p. 2. point 42 ) . However. in the 2005 contract dialogues the affair of the anti-nepotism policy was non brought up. The Company hence states that the Union is trying to alter the regulation in an improper forum and “Arbitral law clearly establishes” ( Co. Brief. p. 14 ) that this is something that they are non allowed to make ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . The Company contends that the no-relative regulation is a long-standing Company policy dated before the grievant was hired. The pattern predates World War II but it didn’t become written policy until 1977 in a manual merely published for the five divisional force directors.
It was written officially in the 1995 operations manual which is 4 old ages before the grievant was hired. In 1998 it was published in the employee enchiridion. which governs all employees. that employees may be discharged for misdemeanor of the anti-nepotism policy ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . This policy has been enforced systematically on precisely 23 different occasions. three or four of those occasions’ involved Union workers. In all cases the last employee hired was terminated. which is besides what happened in this case. The Company has ever stood on the footing that the less-senior employee has ever been terminated. Over the 40-plus old ages of the no-relative regulation. uncle has ever been included in specifying relation.
The Company cites the Honaker v. Florida Power & A ; Light Co. . et Al. . Case No. 91-113-OrlCiv-Y. where the tribunal states the instance could hold been dismissed entirely on the footing of the Company’s longstanding ‘no-relative’ regulation but in fact dismissed Honaker for doing a false statement on his employment application ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . The Company is exerting its rights from Paragraph 4 of the corporate bargaining understanding which gives sole rights to engage and exert full control and subject over its employees in the involvement of carry oning its concern. Besides. the fact remains that no such term restricts the Company’s right to implement its no-relative policy. Therefore the Company claims that Mr. Walton was discharged from enforcement of its no-relative regulation on “pure” anti-nepotism evidences every bit good as on disproof evidences ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . 4. Associate the two places to the contract linguistic communication
The Company is merely and has the authorization to dispatch employees which is given to them in Article 1 subdivision 4 titled Management in Company. In this subdivision it states that the Company “has the right to engage. promote. suspend. lay off. discharge and reemploy employees. ” The Company has the right to exert full control and subject over its ain employees ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . In the instance of Mr. Walton the company feels it is good within their rights to end Mr. Walton on the evidences of anti-nepotism. The Company has long stood on the policy of anti-nepotism and even though it is non brought Forth within the hiring procedure. they remain faithful that it is stated in the Employee Manual of 1998 and so once more in 2003. The Company believes that Mr. Walton’s discharge should be upheld on the footing of three evidences. The Company had added the subdivision “Employment of Relatives” in 2003 to their employee enchiridion. the no-relative regulation being long-standing and good known. and last. even when there is no grounds of favouritism relations of current employees were non eligible for hire. The Union has the power to raise the Board of Arbitration proceeding.
This is outlined in Article 2 Paragraph 22 titled Discharge for Cause. This means when there is a struggle of involvement between the Union. the employee or the Company they need to travel to an arbitration proceeding to acquire a opinion. If this opinion is in favour of the employee they could be reinstated and any losingss will be reimbursed. The Union is right and supported by the Memorandum of Understanding Paragraph 27. titled Interpretation of “Without Prejudice” . because the Company is using old grudges in the Arbitration process. Paragraph 27 provinces it is the common apprehension of the Company and the Union that the words without bias or words of similar import mean that the colony in which the words were or are used does non represent a case in point of any sort. nor can the colony be once more brought Forth in any future grudge or arbitration process ( Sloane & A ; Witney. 2011 ) . The apprehension of this is that the Company can’t be conveying up past arbitration proceedings to decide current or future 1s. During the arbitration proceedings for grievant Keith W. Walton the Contractual Language comes into drama and supports both parties. 5. Discourse your analysis of the redress
It is ill-defined what the concluding determination on this instance was ; both the Company and the Union had strong places on the issue. The Company does hold the right to end any worker at any clip. Unfortunately. they used the ground of anti-nepotism. when in all histories there was clearly no grounds of said misdemeanor. Since Mr. Walton did non cognize that his uncle was an employee of the company at the clip of make fulling out the application he did non fall into the class of disproof of his application. So when it was found about 8 old ages subsequently that relations were working within the same company it violated the Company’s policy of No-relatives. Therefore. in misdemeanor of this policy the Company had to end Mr. Walton and since they could non categorise the state of affairs underneath disproof the following measure was anti-nepotism. The Company had seen instances in the yesteryear which were considered a misdemeanor and slated this in to compare to Mr. Walton’s instance. The Union believes that Mr. Walton was unjustly terminated since there was no clear grounds of the anti-nepotism misdemeanor.
They besides stand with stating since the policy was ill-defined. since the employee enchiridion was seldom seen. the employee was confused by the policy and did non understand the policy in general. and that direction of the Company was confused by the policy that the Company did non ever continue this policy and was inconsistently applied. They invoked the Arbitration proceeding to rectify the state of affairs to find if there was a manner to turn over the expiration of Mr. Walton. The Union stands that the Company is in misdemeanor itself by keeping past instances in comparing to this grudge that was ne’er straight related to Mr. Walton and his instance. By the Company making this the Union strongly believes that Mr. Walton should be reinstated in his original places with full compensation of his losingss.
Companies have been found to be over-cautious when raising anti-nepotism regulations ; particularly when there isn’t a clear struggle of involvement happening says a Tennessee tribunal of Appeals ( Allyn. 2012 ) . Nepotism should be taken earnestly so that it isn’t allowed like in the recent instance in the Justice Department where members are seeking to work the system to acquire friends and household members hired ( Lee. 2012 ) However. nepotism instances do justify a better expression into the instance particularly when there is none to be found like in the Tennessee instance where the entreaties tribunal found the Nashville Electric Service’s nepotism policy “arbitrary” and “capricious” ( Allyn. 2012 ) . After farther reappraisal of the facts of this arbitration there is clearly no nepotism has or is happening between the relationship of Mr. Walton and his uncle. so I find the result to be merely in doing Mr. Walton whole for all rewards. senior status. benefits. and overtime hours during his improper discharge.
Allyn. B. ( 2012. December 26 ) . Marriage leads to demotion for public-service corporation worker. Retrieved from USA Today: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. usatoday. com/story/news/2012/12/26/marriage-leads-to-demotion/1792691/ Lee. K. A. ( 2012. July 27 ) . Allin the household: Report inside informations instances of nepotism at Justice Department. Retrieved from NY Daily News: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. nydailynews. com/news/national/family-report-details-cases-nepotism-justice-department-article-1. 1123278 Oxford University Press. ( 2010. April ) . nepotism. Retrieved January 20. 2013. from Oxford Dictionaries: hypertext transfer protocol: //oxforddictionaries. com/definition/american_english/nepotism Sloane. A. A. . & A ; Witney. F. ( 2011 ) . Labor Relations ( 13th ed. ) . Upper Saddle River. New Jersey. United states: Pearson Prentice Hall.