Arbitration

docx

School

University of Waterloo *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

301

Subject

Management

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ProfMouse3570

> After 8 months from the 2nd suspension, On 17 September 2003, Frank Kelly, caretaker, was 10 days suspension for Continuing inappropriate behaviour. With her shift supervisor Ms. Von. > 1st Suspension: 16 Dec 2002. Two days without pay, He used extremely abusive or foul language, which was overheard by teachers and students, with his head caretaker and shift supervisor—verbal assault. > 2nd Suspension, 09 Jan 2003, 5 days without pay. I claimed overtime that was not worked and also had to reimburse the board $265.13. > Frank Kelly= caretaker > Co-worker= Paul Moore > Shift supervisor= Ms. Von > Team Leader= Mike Duchaine > Head Caretaker= Bob Mochrie's > Board supervisor facility services= Micheal Lubgans 1) Do not use Vinegar, as it degrades floor wax as well as Corrosive for the machine. Use Pearl 405 liquid in the machine. 2) Her (Ms. Von) Intention was not to reinforce the instructions that had previously been given to the caretaker by team leader Mike Duchaine. (PG2) 3) She was told by Mr. Bob that "he had noticed that it had vinegar in it and that she should speak to the grievor about it in order to ensure that he was following directions." Mr. Mike Lubgans was not aware of this situation. pg7. - Mr. Mike's testimony-Paul Moore He remarked that, in his view, it was "most definitely insubordination." 4) Same statements in the report and in the hearing as well 9 days later.

" I mentioned I would appreciate it if they would not put vinegar in the floor machine, especially the new one" Her recollection at the hearing was the same as she stated later in her drafted handwritten notes: So what do you want me to use - piss. 5) Kelly's Statement: I'll use whatever you want, Bridgitte, I'll even piss in this machine". Bit of Joke. 6) Within about 10 days, Jan 2004, he was transferred to the head caretaker position on an interim basis as a sick leave replacement. pg8 Important": Grouds: Improper Use of machinery Continuing inappropriate behavior Disrespectful to the Supervisor

Background case 1: The case revolves around Dorothy Emburgh, an employee at Aro Canada Inc., who received a three-day suspension for swearing at her supervisor, Tony Leal. The incident occurred when Leal made disparaging remarks about needing a man's help, to which Emburgh angrily responded. The arbitrator found Emburgh's behavior unacceptable but considered mitigating factors such as her emotional state and Leal's provocative comments. Despite a prior disciplinary record, the arbitrator deemed the suspension unjust and substituted it with a one-day suspension without pay. Additionally, the union sought an adjournment after the employer challenged the assumption that Leal had made the triggering remarks, which was granted without financial consequences to the union. Background case 2: In this arbitration case, Issa Abdirahman, an employee of Dough Delight Ltd., was suspended for five days for insubordination. The suspension was based on three separate incidents that occurred on February 19, 1997: 1. Reporting Late: Issa was late for his 6:00 a.m. start-up and failed to follow proper call-in procedures. He did not leave a message as required when unable to report for work. 2. Insubordination at a Meeting: Issa engaged in a heated argument with a supervisor during a meeting in the Production Office. He made disrespectful remarks, including swearing at the supervisors and refusing to participate in resolving the issue. 3. Swearing at Supervisor After Lunch: Upon returning from lunch, Issa swore at a supervisor when discussing a safety concern. The arbitration panel heard testimonies from various witnesses, including Issa, supervisors, and coworkers. Ultimately, the panel found that Issa's actions constituted insubordination, especially considering his past record of disruptive behavior. As a result, the panel dismissed Issa's grievance, upholding the company's decision to suspend him for five days. Therefore, in this case, the employer (Dough Delight Ltd.) wins, and Issa's suspension is upheld.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Background Case 3: Summary: Jane Wilson Towers Ltd., the employer, manages several apartment buildings, and Juan Lopez, the grievor, works as a maintenance person. Lopez has been with the company for eight years, initially as an independent contractor for four years and then as a regular full- time employee covered by the collective agreement for the remaining four years. Lopez was suspended for three days on April 23, 1998, following an incident where he allegedly falsely indicated that an apartment was prepared for an incoming tenant. Dmytro Leshchyshen, the Property Manager, sent Lopez a letter expressing disappointment upon finding that the apartment was not ready despite Lopez's assurances. The case involves a grievance filed by Lopez against the suspension. The matter was heard before an arbitrator in Toronto on June 8 and August 21 and 24, 1998. Nicholas Keresztesi represented the union, while the employer was represented by Mark Stone. The arbitrator issued the award on September 9, 1998, after considering the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. In the case of Jane Wilson Towers Ltd. v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 (Lopez Grievance), the dispute was brought forward to arbitration pursuant to the Labour Relations Act R.S.O. 1990 and a collective agreement. The grievance, referred to as the Lopez Grievance, involved a disagreement between Jane Wilson Towers Ltd. and the Labourers' International Union, Local 183. The arbitration proceedings took place in Toronto, Ontario, with hearings held on June 8 and August 21 and 24, 1998. The arbitrator, D.C. Stanley, delivered the award on September 9, 1998. Nicholas Keresztesi represented the union, while Mark Stone represented the employer.

Unfortunately, the summary of the case and the outcome, including which party prevailed, are not provided in the information provided. If you have access to the full text of the award, I'd be happy to help you analyze it further. Background Case 4: In this case, a grievance was filed by an employee who claimed unjust termination under a collective agreement. The employer sought to introduce detailed factual allegations from the employee's disciplinary record to justify the termination. However, the union objected, arguing that only the general nature of disciplinary actions and penalties should be considered, not the specific details of past incidents. The board ultimately ruled in favor of the union, stating that the disciplinary record should consist only of a general statement of the offense, the date of the action, and the penalty imposed. Detailed factual allegations from past incidents were deemed irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. The dissenting opinion disagreed, arguing that the specific documents from the employee's file should be admissible as they were previously grieved and settled and that the chairman's decision to limit the evidence could set a problematic precedent. So, in summary, the union wins in this case as the board ruled in their favor by restricting the evidence to be considered in assessing the termination grievance. Background case 5: In the case of Mrs. Mancini, she was discharged from her job after an incident where she allegedly spat at her supervisor and called him a derogatory term. The company argued that her actions constituted insubordination and just cause for discharge. However, Mrs. Mancini claimed that she aimed to spit on the floor, not at her supervisor, and that her actions were provoked by the supervisor's refusal to accommodate her shift request due to family issues. The arbitrator found that while Mrs. Mancini's conduct was insolent and contemptuous, it did not warrant discharge. The company was directed to recall Mrs. Mancini to work, pay her four weeks' wages, and enter a suspension on her record instead of a discharge. Therefore, Mrs. Mancini wins in this case.

Background Case 6: In this arbitration case, a dispute arose between an employer and a union regarding the suspension of an employee for insubordination. The employee, a long-serving shipper, expressed displeasure when assigned outdoor work on a rainy day, leading to a confrontation with his supervisor. The supervisor perceived the employee's behavior as challenging and disrespectful, prompting a five-day suspension without pay. The union argued that the employee's conduct did not amount to insubordination, emphasizing that he did not outright refuse the assignment. They also highlighted mitigating factors such as the absence of obscene language and the employee's apology following the incident. However, the arbitrator determined that the employee's behavior was indeed insubordinate, as he openly challenged the supervisor's authority and displayed defiance in front of other employees. Considering the circumstances and the employee's prior disciplinary record (a warning for sleeping on the job), the arbitrator upheld the suspension, finding it within the range of reasonable disciplinary response. Therefore, the employer wins the case, and the suspension of the employee is upheld.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Related Documents

1-4 Video Check-In- Learner-Instructor Connect.docx

2-2 Memo- Performance Evaluation.docx

Harley Davidson Case .docx

PO1002_PreAssessment_TBarrett.docx

quiz2.docx

quiz 3.docx

WK3-2-TOP1.docx

Memorandum assignment.docx

This week we were tasked with looking at servant leadership and adaptive leadership.docx

Administrative Memorandum Process.docx

Chapter 7 6th Edition Q's.pdf

Psych Discussion post.pdf

Recommended textbooks for you

Understanding Business

Management

ISBN:9781259929434

Author:William Nickels

Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education

Management (14th Edition)

Management

ISBN:9780134527604

Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter

Publisher:PEARSON

Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...

Management

ISBN:9781305947412

Author:Cliff Ragsdale

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...

Management

ISBN:9780135191798

Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon

Publisher:PEARSON

Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...

Management

ISBN:9780134728391

Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin

Publisher:PEARSON

Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)

Management

ISBN:9780134237473

Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo

Publisher:PEARSON

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134527604
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...
Management
ISBN:9781305947412
Author:Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...
Management
ISBN:9780135191798
Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...
Management
ISBN:9780134728391
Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134237473
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:PEARSON