Employee grievances are bound to occur, especially in the places of work. Employees raise various complaints due to different reasons. The reasons that usually drive employees to raise complaints include the individual victimization, changes in the terms and conditions of the employment agreement, and concerns in the health and safety regulations of the company. Factors that motivate employees to raise their grievances such as the alteration in the cultural norms of the employment, the failure to offer the set standard wages and bonuses to the employees as well as the changes in the usual terms of operation or practices.
According to the case study presented in Carly’s’ case study, various incidences indicate that she had the right to air her grievances. The complaints she filed on the general agreement with her employer as stipulated in the contract Article 22 of the OSSTF and OCDSB collective agreement. With the grievances having been given and documented, the investigations had been carried out, by both the employer and the defending side, on the allegations of office misuse. The following was the outcome of the general agreement.
Management Outcomes from the Investigation
The issues of the grievances raised were justified by the team. The school chose an external hiring strategy because they said they needed some new entrant in the final class. Someone who had better qualifications than Carly, despite her experience. Her argument would have been based on just acquiring her current knowledge from this particular school, while the new teacher, who is not new in teaching had experience from previous schools. According to Pillai & Nikhil, the ability to bring in new ideas from elsewhere puts the school in a better position than Carly. This strategy is aimed at getting to learn a few things about other schools and their operations so as to improve the standards of the future performance in this school.
This teacher had a specialization in biology, which, in this case, was the subject that needed attention. In case, the teacher turned out to be as good as the paper presented her. Specialization of labor is a sure way of attaining the highest level of quality (Pillai & Nikhil, 2014). Already trained personnel to provide instant talent. The teacher had tertiary education qualification than any of the current teachers. It is beneficial to the employer as they do not have to waste time growing their existing talent. She has a higher degree than Carly, who was the better-qualified person to get the position. Therefore, it was just logical that the external teacher got the job considering the quality needed for the graduating class.
The school of the origin for the teacher hired is better than this school. Carly had to be explained to that the school had better laboratory services for the students. Therefore, with plans for expansion. As well as the target is the senior most classes which needs as much experience as possible for them to learn better. The teacher is, and positive addition has she is already accustomed to modern laboratory works. It is important to add someone that already has experience in laboratory practical. It is critical for the students because the current workforce has basic training and not much experience of a senior class to benefit.
The teachers show similarity when it comes to the number of years they have been able to work. The two teachers having a teaching experience of seven years, gives them an advantage of being chosen to teach in the senior levels. The equal number of years worked means that on these consdirations, none had an advantage over the other. The selection to the senior teaching position is based on the number of years ne has been able to work. The number of years and experience can be determined either from the previous working place or even by the current employer.
The number of years of experience and as per the agreement was firstly supposed to favor Carly, because she had been working for the scholl for seven years, and the agreement stipulates that, when the candidaave the same number of teaching years, then the one who had been working for the institution for the longest time is favoured. This should not always be the case, because maybe the school need a new approach to teaching that would yield different results from the students. The new teacher’s higher education and more experience in the lab sector should suffice in this decision because Carly’s experience is not enough to achieve the set goals of the school. The argument in this scenario could be fortified in that the more academically qualified the teacher is, sometimes the better the quality of the service offered.
Final Decision
Given that the two teachers had the same level of expertise in the teaching profession, which did not stand as the only qualification for the job. The new teacher had a higher standard of education than Carly, and so, the new teacher stood a better chance of getting hired. The new teacher also had a lot of lab experience that was a greater advantage both to the final year students as well as the school itself. The new teacher was expected to exercise her knowledge in helping the students gain what they required.
Based on the evidence given, it was clear that the school had no option other than to hire the new teacher, based on her years of experience in the teaching profession, her expertise in the educational field, and her higher level of education as well as her deeper knowledge in the laboratory field. Therefore, it was clear that Carly, who was the petitioner, had lost fairly and that there was no any form of discrimination in the hiring process of the new teacher.
References
Pillai, S. & Nikhil, P. (2014) Analysis of Internal vs. External Hiring Decisions. Incentius. Retrieved from http://incentius.com/blog-posts/analysis-of-internal-vs-external-hiring- decisions/
