Emma williams case arbitration essay

There are a lot of evidence upon which due consideration needs to be taken regarding the technicality of the process. Key Management argument The management in the letter of discharge held that the alleged employee was dismissed on the grounds of failing to call in sick as well as for excessive absenteeism (19 percent as against a hospital average of 7 percent). It was reached at after verbal counseling that was followed by two written warnings for absenteeism dated 27th Jan 2013, 23rd July 2013, and 15th Oct 2013 respectively. At the time of the warnings, a union representative was present. Williams was discharged on 3rd Dec 2013 after having three-day absenteeism without permission. Typically, many collective agreements provide that in advance of individual meetings between the employer and a bargaining unit employee, the employee is entitled to request or is required to have a union representative present at the meeting, sometimes referred to as the mandatory union representation clause as stated in the case of U.

F. C. W. , Local 401 v. In the above case scenario, the arbitrator who heard the objection concluded that the discharge was justified merely on the information on lateness that the employer had at that time, however, ordered the employee be reinstated conditionally on the employer reviewing their workplace practices to establish whether the accommodation was possible (Miedema, 2018). The arbitrator further held that if the employer could have been aware of the employee's situation, could have been obligated to offer accommodation to her until when she had overcome undue hardship. Thus, they were unaware of the condition as the employee herself was unaware of the impact likely for her situation, thus in itself it acted as a symptom of her depression. The objectivity of the decision to dismiss the employee has also been put into question.

Whereas the decision could have been arrived at more steadfastly, the employer showed compassion which might have eroded the seriousness of the warning on the employee. The other aspect worth considering is the fact that there is a glaring inconsistency in the application of the hospital policy on absenteeism among the employees. The management dismissed Williams based on the statistics of her absenteeism that was at 19 percent of the allowed 7 percent in the hospital policy, yet another employee had more than 10 percent absenteeism rate and did not face the dismissal. It portrays the disproportionate application of the policy which violates one of the conditions of just cause. The condition holds that the implementation of the policy concerning employee discipline needs to be reasonable and proportional.