Week 2 Case Study 10 an Anti-Nepotism Policy

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 271
  • Published : February 3, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
|
Case Study 10|
An Anti-Nepotism Policy|
|
[Type the author name]|
|

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.]|

Table of Contents
1.Describe the issues in the case2
2.Provide a clear explanation of the union’s position2
3.Explain management’s position4
4.Relate the two positions to the contract language5
5.Discuss your analysis of the remedy6
Bibliography9

1. Describe the issues in the case
On November 2, 2006 Journeyman Mechanic Keith Walton was discharged for violating the anti-nepotism policy of the Company. Mr. Walton had been employed by the Company since April 30, 1999. The Company has a strict standing no-relative rule to prevent nepotism in the work place that predates World War II but wasn’t officially published in the employee handbook until 1998. It states that employees may be discharged for violation of the anti-nepotism policy (Sloane & Witney, 2011). On January 5, 1999 Mr. Walton applied for employment with the Company and in it he states that no relatives of his are employed by the Company. He was unaware of his uncle being employed with the Company during the application process and found out some time later. In light of this the Company has made it clear that he was not discharged for falsification of the employment application (Sloane & Witney, 2011). The issue didn’t arise until October 2006, after 7 ½ years of employment with the Company in which time he worked his way up to his current title. On October 30, 2006 he was confronted by Assistant Maintenance Superintendent Frank Hayes in which he wanted to find out whether the accusations had validity behind them or not. During such conversation Hayes reassures Mr. Walton by saying “no matter what happened, don’t worry” (Sloane & Witney, 2011). 2. Provide a clear explanation of the union’s position

Although the Union can establish policy on hiring of relatives and anti-nepotism, it does not have the right to apply policies in bargaining (Sloane & Witney, 2011). In retrospect of this case Union witnesses testified that there was little knowledge of the Company’s “anti-nepotism” policy. The Company might claim that this is policy but when witnesses don’t even know the word and have to refer to a dictionary how can it be supported. There was also limited access to the General Operations Manuals where said policy is stated. This is another reason why this said policy can’t be supported when not all employees knew about it. It wasn’t until 2003 when the Company published “Your Career…Your Company,” and the “Employment of Relatives” when such said policy was known. The Union stands that employees did not know of or understand that this was policy. The Company also displays confusion on the employment of relative’s policy contained in the General Operations Manuals. This is known by the need of conferences among managers in order to find out how such policy should be applied in situations. A prime example of such confusion is displayed in the Geisbecker-Crawford case. In this case management was not sure what the policy was, and where an employee was first assured that he did not violate the policy, then told that he did, and then retained in employment because the original interpretation of the Company was deemed to be correct (Sloane & Witney, 2011). A similar instance occurred in the current situation where Hayes reassured the grievant that “no matter what happened, don’t worry” (Sloane & Witney, 2011). The Union stands that management doesn’t fully understand the policy and has a double standard by telling employees not to worry. Nepotism is defined as the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs (Oxford University...
tracking img