Collective Bargaining Case Study

Collective Bargaining Unit VII Case Study

Erica S. Tanner

Columbia Southern University

Sleeping on the Job

1. The company’s treatment of the grievant for the first two “sleeping on the job” incidents should not influence the outcome of this case. The first incident of the grievant sleeping on the job was an undocumented oral warning. One of the disciplinary procedures the Bureau of National Affairs advise company’s use is to give adequate warning in writing. The Bureau even advise oral warning should be recorded in the employee’s personal record with copies sent to the union (Carrell, M. R. & Heavrin, C. 2013). Keeping a detail records of all disciplinary action can aid in the justification of termination and defend the company against any claims of discrimination. This would appear to negate the influence of the first claim however, after the second incident of the grievant sleeping on the job a counseling session occurred with the company, union, and grievant in attendance. During the counseling session, the grievant was told if he got caught sleeping on the job again he would be terminated. If the employee was caught sleeping on the job it would show “just cause” for his termination with his failure to follow safety rules. The company could not use the first two incidents to influence the outcome of the case because in the third incident the grievant appeared to be sleep however the company was not certain he was sleeping.

2. The company would only have had just cause to dismiss the grievant for violating the safety rules when in each instance cited, the truck was out of gear with the safety brake on if the violators contract stated if that the rule is broken it is adequate grounds for automatic termination. It is common for a company to list the most common acts that can lead to immediate discharge as a warning to its workers. The list is gone over, and agreed upon with the union during the collective bargaining process, and put in the employee’s contracts. Company’s do this to enlighten its employee or the what the outcome will be should they commit any of the listed acts or violations. It is important to keep in mind most contracts state the employee is allowed to appeal the decision made by the company. Contract also normally require the union be notified in advance or a pre-discharge hearing be held with the employee and union present.

3. The union argument that the grievant appearance of asleep is not asleep as charged is creditable. The second of the Bureau of National Affairs suggested management and labor official use for policies is get the facts. It warns a company should “investigate fairly and objectively by interviewing witnesses to ensure that both sides of the story are presented” (Carrell, M. R. & Heavrin, C. 2013). It also states using questionable evidence, making assumption and, personal biases will be hard to defend during arbitration. In this case if the backhoe driver is unwilling to testify to seeing the grievant actually sleeping in the truck it weakened the case of the company. The grievant claimed he was just bracing himself as to not fall out of his seat because of the positon of the truck. The supervisor would have to testify he was a hundred percent sure the grievant was asleep in the truck for the company to a chance at winning the case.

Reference

Carrell, M. R. & Heavrin, C. (2013). Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining: Private and Public Sectors (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.