Reference no: EM133180719
CASE STUDY
Instructions
Review the facts below and answer the questions that follow, for a total of 20 marks
Facts
The grievor, John Smith, was employed by Alpha for 15 years as a Printing Press Operator. The printing press at Alpha operated on a continuous 24 hour basis. John worked the morning shift from 8 am to 5 pm.
Peter Jones worked as the Printing Press Operator on the night shift from 12 am to 8 pm. However, Peter and John worked together on the press up until the end of December 2017, on the morning shift. One of the reasons Peter was moved to the night shift was because Peter and John could not get along. They frequently argued and at one point engaged in a shoving match on the production floor. No one was injured and the employer did not discipline either employee. Instead, the employer moved Peter to the night shift, which he did not have a problem with because it suited his lifestyle.
Although Peter and John worked separate shifts, their animosity continued, though not because of John's behaviour. John would frequently hear from other peers on the night shift that Peter was bad mouthing him. In addition, at least once a week since moving to the night shift, Peter would move a garbage can stationed by his tool box and chain it to John's toolbox. John complained to his supervisor, who advised that he should just ignore the behaviour.
On the morning of April 15, 2018, John arrived at work and noticed that the garbage can was again chained to his toolbox. Also attached to the toolbox was a picture of a cartoon monkey drinking tea with the following handwritten caption: "the rotting banana in your toolbox is starting to stink, but that's none of my business".
Frustrated, John removed the garbage can and kicked it towards Peter who was finishing up some work after an extended night of production. In response, Peter yelled "what's the matter can't take a joke?" and then approached John aggressively and stood right in front of his face challenging him to a fight. John responded by shoving Peter into a shelf of supplies that then fell over. Peter was not hurt and other than the mess that was created, no company product was damaged or lost.
Video surveillance revealed that Peter did in fact attach the garbage can to John's toolbox and taped the monkey meme to it. The video showed Peter laughing and chatting with colleagues. The video also showed the altercation between John and Peter exactly as described.
Alpha was fed up with the situation between John and Peter and responded by terminating John's employment for just cause, in breach of its anti-workplace violence policy. Given Peter's "horseplay", he was given a two-day suspension.
John was 47 years old with a clean disciplinary record. He had two young children and a spouse unable to work because of a disability.
John grieved his termination and the hearing was scheduled before an arbitration board at a nearby hotel.
1. There is no evidence of any progressive discipline action in this case. Assuming the situation involved a less serious form of employee misconduct, identify the four typical "steps" seen in a progressive disciplinary program in a unionized work place.
2. Provide one example of a situation where an employer would not be expected to apply progressive discipline.
3. Describe the process by which the arbitrator may have been selected.
4. What are the 2 key issues that the arbitrator has to determine in this case?
5. What is the meaning of burden of proof? Which party has it in this case and why?
6. What is the concept of "mitigating factors" in relation to the arbitrator's consideration of the disciplinary penalty and identify 3 mitigating factors that may be relevant in this case.
7. What is the arbitrator likely to do in this situation?
8. If the party does not like the result of the arbitrator decision what can they do?