Essay on Week 2 Case Study 10 an Anti-Nepotism Policy

2244 WordsJan 20, 20139 Pages
| Case Study 10 | An Anti-Nepotism Policy | | [Type the author name] | | [Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] | Table of Contents 1. Describe the issues in the case 2 2. Provide a clear explanation of the union’s position 2 3. Explain management’s position 4 4. Relate the two positions to the contract language 5 5. Discuss your analysis of the remedy 6 Bibliography 9 1. Describe the issues in the case On November 2, 2006 Journeyman Mechanic Keith Walton was discharged for violating the anti-nepotism policy…show more content…
The so called policy also states “may become subject to immediate discharge on the first offense” (Sloane & Witney, 2011). The Union stands that the word “may” establishes a choice which in hand the Company so chose to discharge the grievant with no evidence to support the claim of nepotism. The Union for all of the above reasons requests that the board restore Keith W. Walton, an almost 8 year highly rated veteran, to his job of Maintenance Mechanic at the Manatee Plant, and to make him whole for all wages, seniority, benefits, and overtime hours denied him during the period of his improper discharge (Sloane & Witney, 2011). 3. Explain management’s position The Company reflects that Mr. Walton’s discharge was just and without prejudice on the following grounds. When the Company added the section entitled “Employment of Relatives,” in June of 2003 it states that “ it is the policy of the Company not to employ applicants who are relatives of employees” (U-3). The Union tried in September 2003 during contract negotiations to change the anti-nepotism policy (Co. Brief, p. 13) by adding “relatives of employees shall not be denied the opportunity of working for the Company” (C-15, p. 2, item 42). However, in the 2005 contract negotiations the matter of the anti-nepotism policy was not brought up. The Company therefore states that the Union is attempting to change the rule in an improper forum and “Arbitral jurisprudence clearly establishes” (Co.

More about Essay on Week 2 Case Study 10 an Anti-Nepotism Policy

Open Document