Part 1: Page 1
Assuming you are the arbitrators -explain your decision in this case and the rationale behind your decision:
As an arbitrator in this case, I would have maintained that nurse Kevin Hyer was at fault because of violating certain work rules, which form the fundamentals of his of his job requirement. In addition, he clearly denies having received prior training on lifting patients yet the nurse Aleesha Barber states that she had received training. Ms. Aleesha Barber further testifies that lifting patients only uses the legs and not the back. Therefore, the medical condition that Nurse Kevin seems to have cannot be justified until he received further documentation claiming that lifting patients would act out on his back. However, since the hospital did not use the proper procedure of reprimanding the nurse in question, the suspension would be reduced to a written warning.
Management argued that, as a nurse, Kevin Hyer is required to perform certain duties like lifting heavy patients. Notably, they argue that even if the nurse Kevin Hyer had serious back problems, they would not affect this duty since nurses use their legs and not their backs. Further statement also reveals that the nurse did not reveal of his back problem when applying for the job and, therefore, could not be exempted from certain duties.
On the other hand, the union clearly states that the head supervisor already had a negative attitude towards Kevin Hyer. This was because he was a union representative on the floor. As a result, her cold treatment may have been because of his union involvement and not his performance. Secondly, the nurse had a right to refuse perform duties that might have jeopardized his safety and with his back acting out, his actions were clearly justified.
Explain why you decided the case the way you did
This case involves a disagreement between the employee and management. From the union’s side, it seems that there is some hostility between the two people directly involved in this case. Ms. Martinez, who is the supervising nurse, should also have advised the human resources department to ask the Nurse Kevin for proper documentation for his condition before allowing him to certain privileges. Allowing him to seek assistance from other nurses when lifting some patients may have implied that she acknowledged his condition. Consequently, changing her standing about allowing him to ask for assistance and then sometimes not allowing him may have confused him and made him feel entitled to a privilege the hospital did not allow.
The hospital management also felt like Nurse John was misusing his position as the union floor representative because, first, the supervising nurse had noted that he took unnecessary breaks chatting up people and laughing with them when he was supposed to be working. In addition, when he refused to follow the supervisor’s instructions, he punched out and threatened to follow up the case with the union. It is also very clear that Kevin may be using his bad back as an excuse to avoid taking care of his basic responsibilities at the workplace. This, therefore, shows that he has very poor work ethic. However, the hospital needs to follow the right procedures if before they reprimand him.
Analyze each argument and the counter
Both sides have compelling arguments regarding the circumstances surrounding this case. The management is completely justified for claiming that nurse Kevin defied orders from management when he punched out after refusing to lift the patient. However, the hospital should follow the guidelines provided by the union if the case is not of a special nature. On the other hand, the union representative maintains that Nurse Kevin suffers back pain and lifting heavy patients would have put him in danger. However, Kevin needs to provide evidence that supports this so that the hospital can manage their expectations from him.
Part2 – Page 2
Summarize the strongest arguments management can make in this case.
Management has a strong case against John Arnett for not paying him for his holiday (Labor Day) remunerations. First, they feel that John Arnett, their employee did not fulfil the requirements that justified payments for holidays. The terms and conditions of the employment state that an employee shall have worked his full schedule immediately the day before and the day after the holiday to receive payment for the holiday. The clause only states an exception in the case of sickness in which the shift manager should have offered to waive this rule in advance of the of the holiday giving the employee a seniority basis. However, in this case John Arnett did not meet any of the requirements and, therefore, did not deserve the holiday pay.
Summarize the strongest arguments the union can make in this case.
The union also has the right to fight for their client’s holiday pay they feel that he had fulfilled his responsibilities for him to be paid for the holiday. First, since he was not scheduled to work on Monday, he had not legally defined article seven. Secondly, he had asked for permission for personal leave day on Wednesday, which he was also legally entitled to in Article seven (B).
If you were the arbitrator, how would you decide each case (provide an opinion, reasoning, and remedy if required)
In my opinion as an arbitrator of this case, I would have decided that the company did not have to pay John Arnett his holiday pay because of the simple reason that the shift manager did not accept the truck driver’s leave of absence. My reasoning is that both the company and the truck driver were both legally within the law to make the claims that they has made about John Arnett’s case. Had John Arnett received permission from the shift manager, he would have been entitled to holiday pay. The proposed remedy is that corrections need to be made in the provisions identifying different circumstances like those identified in this case. These include not being scheduled to work as well as taking a personal leave of absence that an employee is entitled to without the supervisor’s permission and how it will affect their holiday pay.