Q1.
It is apparent from Jesse`s case that the mitigating factors given by the grievant and his witnesses should be given more weight compared to the employee handbook, company policy and labor agreement. The handbook is not mandatory according to the law, although, it can be classified as a record of an employee`s conduct. Whatever has been stipulated regarding Jesse`s behavior at work would, thus, have a significant bearing on his life. Based on this understanding, an employee`s handbook is not legally binding ( Roberts, 2020 ). Moreover, there are many instances where the handbook contains clauses or doctrines that are in contravention with the law. If Jesse is not aware of this, then it can be used against him in court. Besides, there exists policies in the handbook that tend to be contradictory. Also, the employee handbook, company policy, and labor agreement include guidelines that can be altered at any time, depending on the employer.
Jesse was terminated for engaging in an argument and hitting his co-worker, Lindekin over calibration of some sensitive piece of equipment at work. Jesse has contravened Phoenix Semiconductor`s company policy and also the employee handbook which specifies the conduct of the workers. He is, therefore, in a very tough position. Also, despite working in the company for 10 years, there are a few unpleasant elements which he has been associated with. For example, he has at one pint been suspended for three days due to some systems control error. Secondly, he has on several occasions been offered displinary warnings as a result of his poor attendance. It is, therefore, very easy for his petition to be overlooked, if the case concentrates on the policies and guidelines laid out by the company.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Based, on Stansky`s employee evaluation, it is apparent that he is an average employee, and is, therefore, not highly regarded by his supervisors. These are major elements of Stansky`s violation of company rules and policies. The only defense in Jesse`s possession is the idea that he is liked by his fellow employees. This mitigating factor, nonetheless, holds little significance for him compared to the arguments presented against him on the basis of the employee handbook and company policy. As an employee of Phoenix Semiconductor, Jesse is mandated to follow the rules and regulations that have been set. However, with other employees present during the incident, they can offer a clearer picture of what transpired, and also indicate if Jesse was provoked, or what he did was out-rightly something he could have avoided.
Q2.
The ideal world requires that every employee shows commitment and dedication to their work. In the real world, however, such a perfect fit is only but an illusion. There is always a chance that some employees do not become the right fit. In the event that such workers do not perform their work and deliver the desired result, they are required to go through a disciplinary process which ensures that they conform to such regulation. In this case, unprofessional conduct can be viewed as the omission of commission of any form of act capable of causing harm, or one that is bound to threaten the safety and welfare of workers, the business or other third party individuals ( DeMitchell & Paige, 2019 ). It can also be viewed as a violation of ethical conducts laid out by the company in order to govern how employees associate with one another and with the company. Such conduct can, therefore, be reflected in dishonest workers, destruction of business` property and also engaging in fights with colleagues, as can be observed in Jesse`s case.
According to Leonard (2020) , unprofessional conduct requires that a verbal and written warning is initiated. The verbal warning is offered to the employee indicating the possible occurrences of breaching company policies. The written warning, on the other hand, acts as a depiction of a record that is kept to indicate that an employee was warned not to participate in the specified misconduct, and if they do the courses of action likely to be taken are clearly stipulated. Writing a warning requires that it follows a fair procedure, a disciplinary hearing is undertaken and also a follow up following the disciplinary procedure is also set in place.
Q 3.
As an arbitrator, I would ensure that I listen to the arguments presented by every witness present in the incident, and also offer the company an opportunity to voice their concern about Jesse. The reason behind this is that I can only come up with a fair decision if I offer both parties an opportunity to present their grievances. I should, therefore, review the past performance and behavior of employees, and also evaluate the company policies and norms, in addition to the petitions presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant. While looking at the employee`s past performance, it is evident that he depicts an average performance, and has also been sent away for three days owing to poor work attendance. Additionally, he has also been offered several warnings for his conduct. Also, due to some system error, he had to be sent home on one occasion; in which case, the event can be viewed as a form of negligence on his part.
It is also evident that Jesse is liked by his co-workers. He has also worked for the company for 10 years. In some cases, an employee may opt to leave the company they are working for and seek greener pastures based on their working experiences, yet this does not appear to be the case for Jesse. It is, therefore, a clear depiction of loyalty in his part, despite the possibility that someone may decide to indicate that he might not have been presented with another option other than working for the company. Also, despite being an average employee, the Human Resource manager clearly indicates that he has always strived to maintain a positive and cordial environment for work.
An evaluation of both sides of the argument, would lead me to come to the conclusion that Jesse`s misconduct was a one-time affair. There has been no single mention that he has in any way participated in a brawl that has scuttled the affairs of the company at any point in his 10 year career. If had been involved in another fight previously, this would point to the fact that he is highly temperamental and unable to control his anger. Typically, the general perception is that an employee should be given a verbal warning and two written warnings before a dismissal can be processed ( Cole, 2008 ). In such a case, he can be held liable for violating company policy by disrupting the peace of the working environment. I, therefore, feel that he deserves to have been given a fair warning before his termination. Verbal warnings are also terminated from the record of an employee after six months with written warnings being binding for a period of one year ( Cole, 2008 ).If it emerges that even after being offered a warning, he does not improve, then termination can be adopted as a last incentive option. In such a case, the company could argue that he has engaged in a similar misconduct in the past, but still refused to change his behavior. It would also be advisable that company policies on various misconducts be clearly stipulated, and the necessary courses of action outlined.
References
Cole, N. (2008). Consistency in employee discipline: an empirical exploration. Personnel Review .
DeMitchell, T. A., & Paige, M. A. (2019). Threading the Evaluation Needle: The Documentation of Teacher Unprofessional Conduct . Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Leonard, E. (2020). Career Conversations: Progressive Discipline the Right Way. Reference & User Services Quarterly , 59 (2), 92-95.
Roberts, L. W. (2020). How to Evaluate a Letter of Offer or Contract. In Roberts Academic Medicine Handbook (pp. 45-53). Springer, Cham.
