Reference no: EM133387439
Scenario: Sofia supervises both Emma and Mia, who work as light duty cleaners at a large office building. Both Emma and Mia are members of the same union and work together cleaning the tenth floor. Sofia, as part of management, is non-union. The office building has fifteen floors with two cleaners per floor. Mia has recently been awarded a temporary lead hand position to help Sofia with the large team. Mia is supposed to start as the lead hand in two weeks. One of the requirements for the lead hand position was for the worker to maintain a discipline-free record in the last 24 months.
Yesterday, Emma came to Sofia to file a list of complaints against Mia. Emma stated that Mia takes smoking breaks with the cleaners from the ninth and eleventh floors, and she is sure that Mia talks about her to those cleaners. Since Emma is a non-smoker, she said she feels excluded. Emma also stated that last week she heard Mia disclose the winner of her favorite TV competition show to the other cleaners during lunch. Mia must have done this on purpose as she was aware that Emma did not have a chance to watch the final episode. Emma also stated that she saw Mia leave the building with the other cleaners to buy coffee. Emma stated on that day Mia was 15 minutes late returning from her lunch break. Emma also complained that Mia created a chat group with the other cleaners, and she was excluded from joining the group. Emma stated that two weeks ago Mia cleaned the cafeteria and moved all the chairs. Mia must have done this on purpose as she knows that Emma takes lunch there and did not have a place to sit. Emma finally showed two pictures of her ankles displaying round bruises stating that three months ago Mia slammed her cleaning cart against her legs. Emma said that they used to be friends. Now, however, she feels harassed and states that Mia does not deserve the lead hand position. Feeling overwhelmed and stressed with thinking about how mean Mia was to her, Emma asked Sofia if she could take some sick time.
Sofia permitted Emma to go home sick and committed to investigate the concerns. Sofia found Mia outside having a smoking break and told her that they needed to talk immediately. Once Mia returned inside, she went to Sofia's office. Sofia told her that another cleaner made accusations against her of harassment and potential workplace violence. When Mia asked her which cleaner made accusations, Sofia said it was not relevant. Sofia asked Mia to explain her behaviour.
Mia responded that she did not know what Sofia was talking about. In her 12 years of service, she never had accusations made against her and perhaps these accusations were in response to Mia being awarded the lead hand position. Three other cleaners applied for the role, and one of the criteria for lead hand is to have a discipline-free record. Mia asked for details of the accusations and Sofia refused to provide her with details. Mia asked if she could apologize. She was upset and said it must have been a misunderstanding. Sofia told her she had nothing to worry about and she could go back to work. Mia returned to the tenth floor, noticeably upset and distracted, to finish her shift.
Sofia then went and spoke to the cleaners from the ninth floor. One said that he saw Mia take a smoking break with the cleaner from the third floor. He mentioned that Mia told him that Emma is immature and constantly gets in her way. The other, who is a shop steward said that Mia brought him coffee last week as it was his birthday. They all met in the cafeteria during lunch to celebrate. Sofia then went to building Security and confirmed that Mia was present at work at the day of the cart incident.
Sofia determined that, on a balance of probabilities, given that Security confirmed Mia's attendance record, Mia has violated the workplace violence and harassment policy. Due to the gross misconduct, Sofia calls her Employee and Labour Relations Specialist to discuss the termination of Mia's employment. A senior leader at the company is required
- How did the investigation meet and/or fail to meet the principles of procedural fairness?
2.What improvements would you recommend to ensure an arbitrator would uphold the investigation process as fair?