Summary of the Arbitration Reports
Case 1, entails the termination of an employee who had been employed at a state line service station as a ramp serviceman form 1990 to that date of his termination (March of 1993). During the employment period of the ramp serviceman, together with other employees, they were subject to employer’s rules of conduct, which specified specific cases of offenses and their range of disciplines for individual category of offenses. The ramp serviceman had committed three offenses previous to dismissal and argued the incident that led to his dismissal was merely an overreaction that had no real cause for worry. After carefully reviewing the employee, the employer, and the union perspectives, the arbitrator found the dismissed serviceman deserving of the dismissal and the employer justified for such discharge of the said employee.
In case 2, Mr. Charles Jennings served as a journeyman for St. Croix electric cooperative with the role of stacking and sorting supplies or equipment. On the said day (27 August 2011), the supervisor gave Mr. Jennings a written list of tasks to do, among them that of moving reels of coil, which required the use of a forklift. The forklift was provided with every training having been provided for each employee, including Mr. Jennings. Mr. Jennings, during the training, was taught the importance of not allowing any other person untrained to use or play with the forklift. However, the grievant permitted his teenage children to play with the forklift without supervision. As a result, the work was not completed as it should have, some damages were incurred, and cameras were realigned by the grievant purposes without the supervisor’s knowledge. This led to the employer suspending Mr. Jennings without pay pending further investigation. The arbitrator found just cause to terminate the grievant and the grievance was denied.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Factors Influencing Arbitrators’ Decisions
Case 1
The employee had reached level 4 of the disciplinary proceedings before the February 11, 1993, incident, and thus when the employee commented the February 11 incident, there was justification for implementing level 5 punishment, therefore dismissal
The employee showed total disrespect to the fact that he failed to show responsibility in the role he had been given by carelessly failing to adhere to set rules and regulations.
Case 2
The employer showed progressive discipline with little result
The grievant lack of honesty and obfuscation regarding his conduct captured the seriousness of the grievant disregard of rules and needed for rehabilitation
The parties agreement had terms for such misconduct that the grievant knew and understood and still went ahead and broke them
There was just cause for the employer to terminate the grievant as he showed a continued disregard of the agreement he signed and disrespectful attitude towards the employer and their equipment.
Comparison of the Factors
The factors between the two cases did not differ that much as either grievant show a cause for concern due to their disregard of the set rules. Case 1 grievant continuously fails to honor contractual agreements by breaking the rules of employment. Similarly, case 2 employee shows a disregard for the rule of law by subverting the company’s resources for personal gains. Both arbitrators find these two employees contravening labor laws by ignorance and without a show of remorse for their actions.
Secondly, either party (grievant) had been trained for their roles. However, they showed a total disregard for the training they had received. In case 1, the grievant was trained to use a guide-man but still choose not to use one, claiming that he knew what he was doing. This utter disregard of the rules depicted a need for rehabilitation as he understood the rules, but choose to ignore them. In case 2, the grievant had been trained in the use of a forklift and knew the rules pertaining to the use and playing with a forklift. Nevertheless, he still found grounds to subvert those rules for his selfish gain. He even went ahead to disregard his supervisor and alter the company’s surveillance cameras. Each of these two culprits showed a disregard for the company’s rules.
Comparison of the Arbitrators Criteria
The arbitrators did not use their understanding to solve the case. A comparison of the two cases shows a consistency that allowed the arbitrators to take into consideration the employee, the employer, the union, and legal perspectives of each case. Each arbitrator showed a need to run the case through labor rules and try to understand what the law provided for such a case. In turn, this gave the union the opportunity to present their side of the story, to provide the case with a civic perspective that was meant to address the employees need. The arbitrators, in their judgment, were keen to point how every Party to the case argued and how their argument contributed to the case. This gave the arbitrator a point of referral that justified the decision they choose to make in rewarding the employers with a right to dismiss the employees’ grievances.
References
Abernathy #3. Retrieved from: https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/8DD00028-AF18-F3F0-12E24896B420A011/abernathy3.pdf
St. Croix Electric Cooperative vs. Mr. Jennings. Retrieved from: https://mn.gov/bms-stat/assets/20120130-coop.pdf
