6. You are the Arbitrator: Facts: The employee, a union shop steward, was on her
ID: 2746299 • Letter: 6
Question
6. You are the Arbitrator: Facts: The employee, a union shop steward, was on her regularly scheduled day off at home. She was called by her supervisor and told to talk to three union members and instruct them to attend a work function called a "Quest for Quality Interaction Committee" meeting. The Quest for Quality program was a high priority with the employer for improving patient care at the facility and was part of a corporate program. The union had objected to the implementation of the Quest for Quality program and had taken a position that employees could attend the program if their jobs were threatened, but they should do so under protest and then file a grievance afterward. On the day in question, the union shop steward, in a three-way phone conversation with the three employees, told them that she would not order them to attend the Quest for Quality meeting, although she had been asked by her supervisor to instruct them to go to the meeting. The supervisor who had called the union shop steward had herself decided not to order the employees to attend the meeting but relied on the union shop steward to issue the order to the employees. When the union shop steward failed to order the employees to attend the meeting, the employer suspended the union shop steward for two weeks. The steward grieved the two-week suspension. The union position was that the company had no authority to discipline the union shop steward on her day off for failure to give what it termed a management direction to perform the specific job function of attending a mandatory corporate meeting. The union pointed out that it was unfair that the employer refused to order the employees directly to attend the meeting but then expected the union shop steward to do so. The union argued that, although it is not unusual to call upon a union shop steward for assistance in problem solving, the company has no right to demand that he or she replace supervisors or management in giving orders and then discipline the union official for refusing to do so. The company position was that the opposition of the union to the Quest for Quality meetings put the employees in a position of being unable to attend the meetings without direction from the union shop steward, that the union shop steward was given a job assignment of directing the employees to attend the meeting, and that failure to follow that job assignment was insubordination and just 15 cause for her suspension. Nonetheless, the union contended that the arbitrator must examine the nature of the order when deciding whether the insubordination was grounds for discipline. As to the nature of the order in this case, the employer had to demonstrate that the order was directly related to the job classification and work assignment of the employee disciplined. The refusal to obey such an order must be shown to pose a real challenge to the supervisory authority. The employee did not dispute the fact that she failed to follow the orders given to her by her supervisor but pointed out that she was not on duty at the time and that the task being given to her was not because of her job with the company but because of her status as a union shop steward.
1. As the arbitrator, do you think the employer had just cause to discipline the employee? (You may refer to the "7 tests for just cause).
2. If the union's opposition to the "Quest for Quality" program encouraged the employees not to participate, why shouldn't the union be held responsible for directing the employees to attend? 3. Are there any real or potential Section 8(a) employer unfair labor practices in the facts of this case? What type of unfair labor practice? Discuss.
3. Are there any real or potential Section 8(a) employer unfair labor practices in the facts of this case? What type of unfair labor practice? Discuss.
Explanation / Answer
1. )..As per 7 tests for just cause process involves Adequate warning,resonableness, completeness of investigation, proof of infraction, Uniformity of rules application reasonableness of discipline.
In this scenario the employer was insisting for a Quest for quality Interaction committee and union thorughly rejected the same. As an arbitator employer has asked for a good cause of formation of a quality process improement committee and employee or union should support such initiatives from the employer side.
2.There might be chances of some unfair labor practices. May be thats the reason union didnt encouraged for Quesr for quality session proposed by the management. Union totally disagree with the initiaties and they discourage employees to join the same.
Section 8(a) employee rights refers to the unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed.
3. Are there any real or potential Section 8(a) employer unfair labor practices in the facts of this case? What type of unfair labor practice? Discuss
The attitude towards union shop steward,and actions taken against her just because she couldnt co-ordinate with employes on formating the Quality committee as per the employers decision. She was scalled by the supervisor and told to talk to unions regarding this and finally it was cinsidered as her failure of duty and suspended her.As she was officially leave on that pariticular day, there is no official confirmation about her duty. So as per employee act 8a, it is an unfair incident against an employee and she was purposefully targeted for this issue by the employer.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.