Introduction
A broad concept that determines the interaction between an employer and its employees pertains to Industrial Relations. Relatively, it comprises the areas among employees, trade unions, employers, and specifically those which arise within the individual employees and their employer in the workplace (Kehoe and Maurice, 2005).
The two cases center on the relationship between the employees and the employers together with other factors involved. Primarily, the first case is all about the discharge of the employees because of a certain scenario that happened in the workplace which involved some of the employees referred to as the grievors. Arbitration should be made and determine whether the grievors should be given another chance of working again and reverse the issue.
The second case is all about Mr. Warren being denied special leave. Upon being absent from work due to his daughter’s illness, he failed to be successful in filing a special leave because of some grounds that his employer argued.
Discussion
Case 1
Would the union support the case or not? Also why or why not?
Being the union warden, in this case, requires a keen and fair judgment for both parties. Upon reviewing the case, the context applies to the collective bargaining principle wherein with the full cooperation of the employees, they consult about the terms and conditions of their employment. This would usually arise from a labor union that plays as the bargaining agent for the employees (Kehoe and Maurice, 2005).
In this case, the union warden serves as the leader to which the grievors asked for help. With that in mind, the evidence viewed is unreasonable because the term goes with the employers. The grievances of the grievors do not hold a consistency with regard to their statements. The further justification should be defined to be able to defend the grievors. Though labor unions are made to protect the interest of the employees primarily, it still needs to be fair and practice parity in terms of being on the side of the people who appears to be truthful in their statement with corresponding evidence.
However, vague and uncertain still prevails in the case but parity should be taken into account for the rights of the employees to be heard and accurately find out the truth behind the testimonies of each party. Analysis of the case goes with this way; the absence of clear variation in ability, senior employees like Mumps and Rains broadly has the largest protection and should be the last one to be discharged off from work. The discharge that happened should be recalled and further evaluate the rights of the grievors as it revealed that they were employees who have rendered a long- period of service while Bags occupied only a two-year term.
The bumping rights of the senior employee, Mumps, should be given consideration for her more than six years of service and Rains because she has been tagged with a satisfactory quality of work. But apparently, observing that the grievor, Mumps had been at home for three months after the incident, supposedly, a file is invalid because collective agreements broadly include a time restriction which they should do within thirty to sixty days after the incident took place.
Therefore, the answer to the question of whether I, as a union steward, representing the whole union would file and support the case is definitely yes. Suspicious grounds are still revealed in the case and need further investigation. The discharge of the grievors can be considered invalid though for a fact that in Canadian law, there is no such thing as wrongful dismissal. It should be considered invalid because the following grievors in some way qualified for the consideration of being heard in terms of seniority in the job to be able to file a grievance (Salamon, 2000). It should further note that deliberation on such a scenario is worth reviewing.
Just and fair treatment of the case can be referred to for more reasonable notice in certain agendas. Taking into account the character of employment, the length of service of the grievors, the experience, and the training and qualifications of the grievors are factors to hold on to the case.
Would an arbitrator support the decision or reinstate it? Also why or why not?
As an unbiased third person, the decision-making on the various opinions of the grievors can be a voluntary previous agreement or by law. Parity firmly is expected from an arbiter and an “ad hoc” arbiter can substantially decide whether the case should be reinstated or supported. To make sure that the arbitration hearing possesses integration, justification should be raised and sometimes regarded as the “common law rules of natural justice” wherein both involved parties should be aware of. Some of the grounds include the making of concluding statements which will largely affect the process of making the decision (Kehoe and Maurice, 2005).
However, the final verdict with this case should support the decision of the employer on discharging the grievors because of having the evidence against them. Though there is no actual evidence such as an image from a camera or any form of the said evidence wherein the incident pictures out everything and the truth, the statements of the persons involve vary and came to be unstable. Initially, the employees should not take the action of manipulating his/her schedule alone without any supervision of the head.
It appeared that one of the employees tried to look for the schedules upon talking about that the head will do something about it, but still there has been no further notice of checking the new schedules. Another one is that, if the grievors really did not commit the acts being blamed on them, they are not going to have a diverse set of statements. Upon learning that one person is telling something different from the other one is a point of coming out a judgment for the case. Thus, in Canadian employment law, it has been a rule that there should be no reinstatement take place and this is not seen as a cure for such cases to be had by the employer and the employees nevertheless, the damages should be paid accordingly.
Case 2
As the arbitrator, how would you decide this case? Why?
Likewise in the second case, taking into account that entitlement for special leave should be given to the employees. As what the 21.03 leave for other reasons states that when the situations warrant it, special leave with pay may be given to an employee with the instances of having conflict with his environment such as the illness of a family member as illustrated in clause 21.02, prevent him or her to respond to the duties and responsibilities that await at work.
Such instance shall undoubtedly be given and process immediately. The clause provided, clearly emphasizes that an employee should be given consideration if a family member is sick just like what the case of Mr. Warren implies. The collective agreements broadly provide the employer the right to make fair rules and regulations in terms of the conduct of its subordinates. And also in taking disciplinary actions against those who basically do not seem to respond to those rules and regulations accordingly (Kehoe and Maurice, 2005).
As the arbitrator, the judgment of this case should follow the collective agreement where a special leave should be given to Mr. Warren. With what the case says, his daughter had been sick and he, as a father should perform his task as a father for the sake of his daughter.
The issue with regard to the five-hour sleep of Mr. Warren does not constitute a valid reason for depriving him of the right to acquire the special leave because he indeed was not available to attend work for the reason he took his daughter Bethany to their family doctor together with his wife. Though the argument about the shortcoming of the union to prove that such arrangements between crucial periods of time of 7:00 to 9:00 am is not tolerable by the corporation, still, Mr. Warren has qualified for his entitlement of the special leave.
Conclusion
As a whole, the cases point out the working environment inside a company specifically the working relations of an employer with the superiors and other related factors such as the labor unions. Originally, unions are not allowed for some countries and appeared to be illegal but for some organizations, it is permitted and aims to protect the individuals or groups in business internally. The first case qualified for the filing of grievance because some grounds should still be reviewed and fairly justified by the involved parties.
However, the final verdict went no more arguments with the decision of the employer because discipline is needed in order to maintain a good work environment which will lead to the success of the whole company. Though human resources should be the major factor to be treated well because they largely comprise the firm or an organization, and they make up the workforce, a positive attitude towards work and other co-workers could be the determinant of being a progressive organization.
Discipline per se is the willingness of the employees to preparedly obey and interpret the instructions which their superiors asked them to, oblige themselves to accept the business and personal conduct standards, and critically be sensible in demonstrating the duties and responsibilities they should perform (Kehoe and Maurice, 2005). Thus, employees who fail to perform such standards should then expect a corresponding disciplinary action that will appropriately shape the attitudes of the employers.
Also, being neutral in terms of judgment should prevail in giving a disciplinary and most significantly fair just like what happened to the second case. Learning that the case greatly provides empirical measures of being lenient to the employee should not be deprived of his right. With regard to the number of leaves that the employee has engaged with in the past, a conjecture must be into a different area and separated from this particular scenario (Ackers and Wilkinson, 2003).
References
Ackers. P and Wilkinson, A. 2003. Understanding Work and Employment: Industrial relations in transition.Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kehoe, F. and Archer, M. 2005. Canadian Industrial Relations, 11th ed.
Salamon, M, 2000, Industrial Relations Theory and Practice (4th Edition), FT Prentice Hall.