In this paper, I will identify the items assigned scenario and describe the arguments that I would do if I was representing the union in arbitration, and if I was a representative of the employer to arbitration.
From the perspective of the Union, the issues in the allotted scenario falsely accusing employees of theft; dismissal of employees without just cause; Termination Bonnie is very strong compared to 10 years for the photo record of her employment; denial of workers’ rights to have a representative representation of the disciplinary hearing, and failure to provide evidence of wrongdoing workers.
“Less is more” as it pertains to raise the issue of arbitration. As a good advocate, I would try to raise as many issues and probably can. However, I am on the realization that qualitative issues trump statistical issues. As a pit bull, I would go for the jugular of the opponent’s, and push the envelope as much as I can. Of course, I would try to not compromise my integrity or legal code / protocol (as a lawyer).
As the saying goes, “first things first …” Therefore, I would allow the proper process to take its course: the steward / grieves contact manager (question). If you can not reach resolution, union official communications store manager. If still not reach resolution, union president would communicate with the controller. If all efforts at reaching a resolution to this point fail, the employer and I would appear before an arbitrator as per our agreement on cruel and arbitration, if the parties are unable to resolve all unrighteousness, either party may submit the case to an arbitrator for final and binding resolution.
After a four-step dance “as shown in the above paragraph, I’d let ‘dogs loose,” arguing that the employees did not steal shirts. I would underline this statement with the failure of the employer to provide evidence via camera or recording admissions staff to refute my assertion. Thus, I would be able to hold the executive violated the contract, in particular, Just Cause: no employee may be disciplined or discharged to a good cause. I would focus not only an act of infringement but also hardness. For example, I would emphasize the model list of industries that Bonnie had held over a period of 10 years while waving her staff file the appropriate support. Hammer a nail, I would declare that based on the evidence it can only be concluded that employees, especially Bonnie, were terminated with extreme prejudice. A good measure, I would throw in a ‘denial of the request of the union representative’ of the manager of the disciplinary meeting, if the employer has a legitimate defense (will be discussed later).
In reference to the employee handbook contains a provision that theft is a terminable offense that was given Clyde and Bonnie did not provide for the first day of its control; I would consider it negligible due to the following reasons. First, the collective agreement is a contract and the employee handbook is not a contract. So, management reserves the right to change the content of the handbook at any time of the rejection of the front and back of manual workers. Therefore, in light of the EU, Manual AN employees is invalid because it is not clauses. On the other hand, theft is against the law and ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. Howbeit, the first sentence is moot because employees are not guilty of theft. If not, management will have to make a case against my position that since there is compelling evidence supporting its claim.
From the perspective of the employer, the issues in the assigned case workers are caught stealing, and stealing is a just cause for dismissal. For the exhibition (the policy) influence, I would present the employee handbook contains a provision that theft is a terminable offense, give Clyde the time. As for Bonnie, I would emphasize the guilt of the offense – “stealing is against the law.” – A criminal / prosecutable act committed on the premises of the company as a witness by management to view camera recording
More so, termination Clyde is seriously strong that the long paper trail of recent employment. As in the game of baseball, ‘three strikes you’re out “relevant if Clyde is. In addition, management reserves the right to conclude disciplinary cases despite the absence of a request confidant as in labor law. For example, management may take a decision, even if studied entity (fired workers) refused to participate without union representative of said discipline session. Nevertheless, it could be averred that the union representative was not immediately because he had no contact with us until the next day.
Like its counterpart union spokesman management would apply the “less is more” model as regards passionate raise issues during the arbitration. I would reflect an adversary of mine in all aspects described in the third paragraph of this article.
After four dance steps described in the fifth paragraph, I would actually argue that the items in paragraphs six and seven, respectively.
The arbitrator would more than likely rule in favor Union for lack of evidence, neither cameras nor recording confessions employees. Thus, the arbitrator would be forced to give the Union the benefit of the doubt. Someone might against dismissal Clyde would hold up though Bonnie is restored due to chronic model of its employment compared to unsuccessful and short professional career Clyde’s. On the contrary, Clyde and Bonnie were “in the same boat” (no, not a getaway carJ) for lack of evidence makes checkered past him not to restore his job. The late great Johnnie Cochran barrister would put it best: “If you do not have evidence to show … then you have to let go of my customers.”
Finally, I items assigned scenario described the argument I would do if I was representing the union in arbitration, and if I was a representative of the employer to arbitration.