Summary of the Case
The case revolves around Bobby Boss, John Demanding, and Wally Worker. The latter was asked to quit after he failed to perform his workplace duties for several months in a row. Wally was promoted because of the union and their claim that he would become a decent addition to the team while working at another position. It was not the case because Wally did not live up to the expectations of both the personnel manager (John Demanding) and the foreman (Bobby Boss).
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
It was witnessed that Wally behaved inappropriately and displayed insubordination. The decision to send him home and then denote him because of his underperforming attitude seemed to be reasonable. Nonetheless, Wally filed two grievances where he accused the company of dismissing him unlawfully and demoting him due to incompetence accordingly. The case has to be viewed as a situation where each of the parties has to defend their position as there is no strict line between who is guilty and who is not. One of the decisive factors is a collection of reviews from Wally’s past jobs that describe him as an irresponsible and hot-headed employee that merely deserves a chance to restore his reputation.
Preparation for the Role (Witnesses/ Lawyer and Advisor)
Questions to the Witnesses
Mr. Boss, did Wally Worker punch you and threaten your life?
Yes, Wally Worker punched my face and threatened me inappropriately while disregarding the principle of subordination.
Did Wally Worker receive any warning letters in the past few years?
Yes, he received three warning letters in the past three years.
Did Wally Worker cooperate with other employees?
as little as 3 hours
Not really, he has a bad relationship with other workers. Here is a petition from a number of employees who refuse to continue working with Wally Worker.
Did Wally Worker sign a resignation with Sidney Steward?
Yes, he did. Here is the document.
Did Wally Worker try to work normally after he quit his job?
Yes, he tried to work as usual after June 8.
Have you seen Wally Worker going to the racetrack when you let him go to work?
Yes, I had seen him at the racetrack on the afternoon of June 5 when a worker had said that he could not come into work before 4:00 pm
First, Wally Worker will be called to answer the questions. This will be necessary to provide the arbitrator with an opportunity to listen to his view of the situation before the witnesses come up with a number of documents that may produce bias in the arbitrator. Last, the lawyer will call out the representative of the union so as to make sure that their view of the situation is also included in the proceedings of this arbitration (Abrams 132). This strategy will allow the lawyer to eradicate any bias while providing the court with all the evidence and other additional information that can be used to reach a verdict regarding the case at hand.
Weaknesses in the Case
One of the main weaknesses of this case is the fact that Wally Worker did not ask for the promotion and was not promoted solely by the organization where Bobby Boss and John Demanding operate as supervisor and human resources manager respectively. Instead, the claim was established by the union so the representative of this organization will be held liable for the fact that numerous incidences of incorrect behavior displayed by Worker may be the consequence of a wrong HR decision coming from the union (Grenig and Scanza 30). Also, Wally’s Worker ignored a direct request to come to work issued by his supervisor.
Later, he was found to skip the workday instead of clocking in, and that may be one of the critical weaknesses in the case. Nonetheless, the witnesses have to make sure that they provide an evidence-based explanation in regard to the idea that both the supervisor and HR manager were not persuasive enough while refusing Wally Worker’s promotion that they have seen as inappropriate and ineffective.
Who Is Going to Win the Case and Why?
From the available information and evidence, it can be concluded that the organization has more chances to win the case because they have more evidence on their hands that supports the position that Wally Worker did not fit into the organizational environment and negatively affected his fellow workers. Also, one may consider the fact that the union stood up for the employee allegedly without recognizing his working history and past experiences that included toxic behavior, serious absenteeism, and plain insubordination (Grenig and Scanza 39).
Accordingly, the witnesses together with the organization’s lawyer have more chances to waive the employee’s request and win the case because all of their evidence is direct and relates strictly to Wally Worker. It should also be noticed that Worker proved himself to be a decent work in the organization when he operated in a position that was different from the position that he acquired after the promotion. Therefore, the chance that Wally Worker will win the case is rather unlikely, and the company will be able to waive his claims regardless of any other evidence presented by the employee.
Is Right Arbitration Fair?
In order to make the most out of the arbitration procedures, the company has to make sure that the employee enters an administered agreement to arbitrate (Grenig and Scanza 47). By doing this, the team will ensure that the employee signs the affirmation stating that he read the notice and realizes that a rights arbitration program will be used. This step is critical because in the case where the employee does not read the arbitration agreement, they are in the full right to evade the enforcement of the arbitration program on them (Grenig and Scanza 56). The fairness of this program consists in the idea that the employee should have the opportunity to discover that they have a right to bring a claim in court. Usually, this should happen before the employer has to assert that the employee’s claims have to go to arbitration (Grenig and Scanza 81).
Considering all the circumstances presented in the case above, it can be concluded that the concept of right arbitration is fair but only in the case where the employer lets their employee know about the waiver in advance (Grenig and Scanza 84). It can also be mentioned that the method of communication also plays a significant role in right arbitration and the level of its fairness because of its content and the circumstances that led to the creation of the aforementioned waiver.
Abrams, Roger. Inside Arbitration: How an Arbitrator Decides Labor and Employment Cases. Bloomberg BNA, 2013.
you can get a custom-written
according to your instructions
Greig, Jay E., and Rocco M. Scania. Case Preparation and Presentation: A Guide for Arbitration Advocates and Arbitrators. JurisNet LLC, 2013.