Arbitration Agreement/ Disagreement
I have a mixed response in regards to the arbitration resolution set out between the grievant and Yazaki Company. There are three considerations I would like to address; first, is if an actual threat was made, second, whether discrimination toward the grievant by the human resource department occurred, and lastly if the actual meetings that took place after the altercation were legal and binding.
Overall, I do believe that the grievant should have been placed on a suspension but only if the bargaining agreement made clear why the grievant was being punished. If there was nothing therein pertaining to the situation the agreement should be altered to include such situation. The resolution and amendments should have been made between the union and management.
The first problem and most important issue lies within whether the grievant actually threatened the employee Mr. B or any other staff of Yazaki. Through the explanation of the arbitrator it seems clear that no actual threat was made. However, it could be interpreted as a threat when the employee refused to enter the office of Mr. C, the warehouse supervisor. Through further analysis it becomes evident that no direct threat was made to any Yazaki employee.
The next problem lies within the discrimination of the grievant. It is plain to see that the discrimination did take place. However, I believed the arbitrator used this explicitly in their decision to skew the outcome. The discrimination is another issue altogether and should be addressed as such.
Lastly, the primary meeting which took place in Mr. C’s office was a complete mistake. Any meeting should have had the union representative present to prevent any mistakes from occurring that could result from misinterpretation, specifically due to the fact that both employees are represented by the union.