Was there point in the case as you read it when management of the hospital could have changed their approach and compromised and why? Where was this point and what would you have offered?
As I read the case I realized the hospital could have changed their approach and compromised at their approach at the point of terminating the grievant. According to the hospital’s rules with regard to dishonesty, it is likely that the grievant had lied about lacking clean uniform. However, the hospital should have carried out an investigation and as such it should have suspended the grievant for a week. Thus would have allowed the hospital to get to the root of the matter and to verify and certify that indeed the grievant had lied. Nevertheless, the termination of grievant was done in a rush since it was just a day after the supervisor discovered that the grievant had several uniforms. The supervisor made the discovery on April 17th and the grievant was terminated on April 18th. The grievant was not given a chance to explain the other side of the story. Thus, the hospital failed to give the grievant a fair hearing since termination was executed promptly.Was there point in the case as you read it when management of the hospital
Moreover, the discovery by the grievant that someone else had access to his locker made more complications to this case. The person could have placed more uniforms in the grievant’s locker on April 16th . People have enemies even at work place and it is possible that a colleague with bad intentions placed the uniforms in his locker on April 16th. Therefore discharging the grievant without a proper hearing and investigation was against his rights as an employee. Every employee has a right for a fair hearing before being terminated.
A keen look at how the termination was done gives one a conviction that the hospital as a whole was an active party not only in plotting but also executing the termination. The hospital if not involved in plotting the termination would have allowed the grievant to defend himself. Additionally, the hospital should have evaluated the costs involved in recruiting another mechanic. Furthermore, the grievant had a clean record and this was the first time he was accused of misconduct. This strengthens my belief that the grievant should have been suspended and not terminated. It was a harsh punishment for someone who had no previous case of misconduct.
- Putting on your Union hat, you have just wasted a lot of members’ dues and got just half a loaf. Is there a point in this case where the Union could have pulled back and compromised? Where in the story could the Union have offered a compromise and avoided arbitration and why?
The union could have avoided arbitration on a scenario where the grievant was reinstated back to his previous position. This should have been done with no conditions. Since the hospital did not reinstate the grievant, it was impossible for the union to pull back. The union believed the punishment given did not match the level of misconduct levelled against the grievant. Additionally, the hospital had no tangible and reliable evidence against the grievant. The union was right to follow up the issue up to the point of arbitration. It was seeking justice for the grievant.
- What is your opinion of the arbitrator’s decision? If you had been the arbitrator and this would have been presented to you how would you have ruled and WHY. Please give me a detailed argument for your decision
My opinion on the decision of the arbitrator is that the arbitrator made the right decision in sustaining and denying part of the grievance. The hospital failed to produce reliable evidence that proved that the grievant lied about lacking clean uniform on 9th. The hospital management and particularly the supervisor also was at fault for failing to ask the grievant, Mr. Z, to open his locker to prove or disapprove his claim of lacking clean uniform on that very day. The grievant was also well aware of what filling a false report would bring. He would have been unreasonable to file such a report knowing he could lose his job. Therefore, I believe the arbitrator did the right thing in reinstating him.Was there point in the case as you read it when management of the hospital
Nevertheless, since the Union also could not prove that the grievant lacked clean uniform on April 9th, the arbitrator did the right thing by ordering a five-day suspension of the grievant. This was a fair punishment based on the level of misconduct involved. He had also worked at the hospital for ten years which showed he was a man of high morals since he remained loyal to the hospital. The suspension would serve to remind him that there is no room for lying at place of work and honesty is always the best policy.Was there point in the case as you read it when management of the hospital