Assignment Instructions/ Description
Questions1. Which party has the burden of proof?2. Which level of proof should be used by the arbitrator?3. Is this matter a contract administration case or a disciplinary case? Which party should go first atthe hearing?4. Should progressive discipline have been used in this matter? Why? Why not?5. Which side has the best arguments?6. How should the arbitrator decide? Give your reasons.
Assignment 4- Due February 21, 2019 Labor RelationsInstructions: Read the case study and answer the questions. Each question must be a paragrapheach. 2 references are needed for this assignment the book is one which the case study belowis provided from and cited for on last page and a scholarly source is needed as a secondreference.Case Study:In Anywhere, United States, an incident that received national attention occurred. In a gatedneighborhood that had experienced recent frequent crimes, a neighborhood watch group wasformed to provide night watch on traffic in the neighborhood. Late one night, two teenagers werewalking through the neighborhood and Citizen A who was on watch that night and armed with apistol observed two teenagers and stopped them. Citizen A asked the teenagers what they weredoing in the neighborhood. One teenager who was quite large for his age answered: “It’s a freecountry; this is the direct path to my house; I will walk wherever I want to walk.” Citizen A responded:“This is a private property and you are not welcome here.” The larger teenager reached in his pocket.Citizen A later told police that he thought the teenager was reaching for a weapon and he fired hispistol. A neighbor who heard the shot called 911 and an emergency medic unit was dis- patched.Upon arrival, the teenager was declared dead. Needless to say, the incident drew much attentionlocally, even national. Group leaders wanted Citizen A to be arrested and put in jail. The local policebegan to conduct their investigations. Citizen claimed self-defense and relied on the state’s law of“Stay Your Ground”.The local media began writing articles for the newspapers and the television stations beganinterviews with interested parties. The incident became the topic of discussion within thecommunity. Captain Fire- fighter, a 15-year veteran of the fire department, became interested in thesubject and, during his off- hours, posted the following on his Facebook page:I and my coworkers could rewrite an entire book on whether our urban youths are victims ofprofiling or products of their failed, pathetic, welfare dependent parents.Once Captain Firefighter posted this message and the message went viral. Many groupleaders called for Captain Firefighter’s termination. After an investigation into the matter, the FireChief concluded that Captain Firefighter had hurt the public’s trust in the fire department anddecided to suspend Caption Firefighter for two weeks. When the mayor heard of the two-weeksuspension, he was upset. The mayor thought that a two-week suspension was an insufficientpenalty for Captain Firefighter’s offense. Instead of a suspension, the mayor decided to demoteCaptain Firefighter to a regular firefighter, two ranks below captain. Upon being notified of hisdemotion, Captain Fire- fighter immediately filed a grievance Article IV (b) of the collectivebargaining agreement that stated:The Fire Chief will make all disciplinary decisions.The Union’s Position:The Firefighters union argued that Captain Firefighter had the constitutional right to express himselfeven though the city administration did not like his message. Captain Firefighter testified at thehearing: “I am a private citizen and have the same right to freely express myself on any subject thatanyone else does.” Importantly, Captain Firefighter did not violate the city’s social media policy andhe did not identify himself as a city employee or a captain within the fire department. Moreover, thecity is not in the business of regulating employee’s speech on an employee’s own time, even ifothers find it offensive.The union argued that Captain Firefighter had an impeccable record with no discipline for 15years. The union also argued that even though the mayor held a higher officer than the fire chief the
collective bargaining agreement authorizes only the fire chief to make disciplinary decisions. Inaddition, the union argued that the disciplinary action was excessive and not progressive.The union claimed that the publicity given by the news media to this case has caused the cityto over- react and the city administration has tried to appease the loudest voices. This matter issimply a case where internal labor relations principles should prevail, and the city has not proventhat disciplinary action should have been taken. Therefore, the grievance should be sustained,Captain Firefighter should be returned to his caption position, and he should be made whole for anyloss of benefits, pay, or seniority.The City’s Position:The city argued that Captain Firefighter had embarrassed the city and had betrayed thepublic’s trust with the fire department. The city argued that, unless it took more serious action than amere suspension, the citizens of the city would not have confidence in and support the city’sadministration. With all the attention now focused on this matter, the city was forced to take moredramatic discipline than a mere two-week suspension. The city argued that there is an importantprinciple here: “the penalty should fit the crime.” The two-week suspension does not fit the offensecommit- ted by Captain Firefighter.The position of captain is second highest position in the fire department, just below thechief. Captain Firefighter has now lost the respect of this fellow fire- fighters and citizens. AllowingCaptain Firefighter to remain in the captain position would essentially make him nonfunctional.Moreover, the city called it to the attention of the arbitrator that Captain Firefighter had neverrecanted his message and never apologized for his actions. Further, the city called to the attention ofthe arbitrator that the mayor is ultimately responsible for running the city, not the fire chief.Therefore, the mayor’s decision should prevail, and the grievance should be denied.
Post a Comment