Even though the Grievant was on the last and final warning, she could not have easily jeopardized her job by smoking in the room. The grievant was well aware of the non-smoking rule and whilst she did smoke, she made sure she did not smoke during the working hours. D, the Grievant and E had contradicting testimonies as to what had transpired on 25th September 2002. B and C during the phone call claimed they had left the room early and none of them smoked and there was no way the cigarette could still be burning at 12.00. F and G acted without enough evidence because the pictures taken were not brought in during the hearing. In addition, the fact that D went talking to E to support his testimony clearly shows that D was telling the truth and therefore the matter required further investigation.
Use the elements in the Just Cause described in the document and the write your explanation as to why the grievant should win or lose the case.
Just Cause is defined as the standard, reasonable and the lawful legal ground for action.
The Grievant had been warned over the previous misconducts that were unrelated to the grounds upon which she was fired. It has not been indicated whether the warnings were made orally or in written form.
The company’s rule was related to the well being of the company and therefore it was in the Grievant’s best interest to obey lest she is dismissed from work. But in this case the Grievant maintains that she did not violate the rule.
The company’s must make its investigation before a disciplinary action is taken. In this case the company did not make an effort to investigate whether the Grievant had smoked in the room of not. [ F ] determined that the grievant should be discharged because she was on the final warning.
It cannot be claimed that the company’s investigation was conducted properly. The Grievant was dismissed simply because she had been given the last warning and [F] trusted [D]’s word more than any [E]’s word. F acted as the prosecutor and the judge. Although the investigation’s evidence was available to the effect that someone had smoked, the witnesses [D] and [E] gave contradicting testimonies.
The company was not fair when making the verdict to the grievant because they did not give her time to explain her position before the disciplinary committee. In essence, it is evident that the company used prima facie evidence to make the verdict without thorough and rational analysis. Actually, it seems the committee used past experiences to make an implication that led to the decision rather than considering the actual facts of the case and the event at hand. Instead, they fired her based on the opinion of a single person. As such, it is clear that she was discharged unfairly.
The Grievant had worked for the company for 11 years and was well aware that she had the last warning which simply meant that she would have done everything to keep her job.
Conclusion
In this case, it cannot be disputed that Grievant should win the case based on the grounds upon which she was fired. Clearly, evidence was not enough besides the fact that she did get enough time to defend herself.
Reference
ENTERPRISE WIRE COMPANY Arbitration Decision, March 28, 1966 Arbitrator: Carroll R. Daugherty
