Which arguments should be given more weight: those based on company policy, the employee handbook, and the labor agreement or mitigating factors given by the grievant and his witnesses? Explain.
In the case of Jesse Stansky, who was terminated for hitting a coworker during their argument, it is vital to consider the numerous arguments raised by both parties. This way, the arbitrators will find it easy to determine the arguments that should be given more weight. In the arbitration case of Stansky, the arguments mentioned by both parties include (1) Stansky's inability to act as per company policy, (2) his inability to follow the employee handbook and labor agreement which he consented to adhere to, and (3) alleviating circumstances mentioned by Jesse and his supporters.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Official documents and rules, such as company policies, employee handbook, and labor agreement, must be consulted when examining the case. This is because these documents document employee conduct or behavior as well as the agreement between employers and employees (Snell et al., 2015). The employee handbook, for example, lays out expectancies and communicates a company's mission and policies (Befort, 2017). It is used to reference how employees must conduct themselves, implement their job, and sustain discipline. A company policy institute a company's rules of conduct, delineating the duties mutually between the company and workers (Snell et al., 2015). Company policies also institute rules relating to employee behavior. The labor agreement institutes the agreement between the employer and the employee.
Company policies, employee handbooks, and labor agreements do not account for every potential agreement. The arguments based on mitigating factors should be given by Jesse Stansky, and his witnesses should be given more weight. When settling disputes, arbitrators often consider their own attitudes towards participants during the decision-making process. They also evaluate all evidence and conduct their own investigations to make a fair and sound decision. The "truths" of the case should be handed hefty weight during the arbitration hearing. Stansky's service duration, previous performance records, and disciplinary actions will play a vital role in finalizing the conclusion of the case. Besides, the witnesses' testimonies will be judged by the arbitrators. Therefore, the arbitrators should give more weight to the arguments based on the mitigation factors given by the grievant and his witnesses.
How might unprofessional conduct be defined? Explain.
In this case, the employer mentions unprofessional conduct as one reason for terminating Stansky, a provision that is well stipulated in the labor agreement. The arbitrators and conflicting parties use certain concepts to achieve their personal goals. One such term is unprofessional conduct. Therefore, it is important to know which actions and offenses constitute unprofessional conduct. Actions like fighting in the workplace and insubordination are noticeably unprofessional. Generally, unprofessional conduct refers to a range of actions or behavior that makes an individual less valuable as a professional. It is often associated with a lack of professional competence (Tuikka, 2019). Unprofessional conduct can be an action done by a worker to affect their own performance, workplace, and colleagues.
To some extent, the aforementioned meaning of unprofessional conduct is demonstrated in the arbitrary case of Jesse Stansky. This is because Stansky made serious mistakes in the workplace. He violated the company policy and employee handbook, which document employee code of conduct. Stansky failed to meet the standards set up by his employer, thus violating ethical rules set up by the company. Thus, Stansky's actions during his conflict with the colleague may be regarded as unprofessional conduct. Stansky hit his coworker during their argument. Therefore, personality conflict escalates to unprofessional conduct.
If you were the arbitrator, how would you rule in this case? Explain fully the reasons for your decision.
In the case of Jesse Stansky, there are a lot of arguments mentioned by the conflicting parties and their witnesses. As such, it is vital to take all arguments into consideration in order to deliver a sound judgment. Besides the numerous arguments presented by the involved parties, unprofessional conduct, which is the main reason Stansky was discharged, is misinterpreted by one of the parties. As such, it is important to understand how all the involved parties interpret this term. In addition, if I were the arbitrator, in this case, I would have focused on collecting additional information during the arbitration hearing. More specifically, I would have focused on factors like relationships, such as the relationship between the two conflicting parties. Additional information would help exclude the guess that Lindekin provoked the conflict intentionally or the management wanted to find a pretext to fire Stansky. Furthermore, I would look into the company's past records to check if there were similar incidents in the past and what their consequences were for the parties.
Centered on the facts of this case, I would rule that a "fight" between Stansky and Lindekin did not occur. Placing a rough hand upon Lindekin does not equate to a punch or physical shove. During the arbitrary hearing, one witness termed the conflict between Stansky and his coworker as just a heated disagreement that halted when Stansky placed his hand on Lindekin's shoulder. As the arbitrator, I would look into Stansky's past disciplinary records. Since there were not similar past records, I would yield them piddling weight. Therefore, since it was just a heated disagreement, I would ultimately acquit the terms of termination downwards to a letter of reprimand that would ultimately befit the circumstances.
References
Befort, S. F. (2017). Employee Handbooks and Policy Statements: From Gratuities to Contracts and Back Again. Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J. , 21 , 307.
Snell, S., Morris, S., & Bohlander, G. W. (2015). Managing human resources . Cengage Learning.
Tuikka, S. (2019). Negative relationships in the workplace. Workplace Communication .
