Case Study 10: An Anti-Nepotism Policy, Page 419 (Also review the information located under the Case Study page this week.)
Your entire submission should be two to three pages, double spaced, with proper citation, as applicable.
Grading Rubric
Here are the criteria for grading this assignment. Use these categories to provide structure within your paper.
1 Describe the issues in the case (15%).
2 Provide a clear explanation of the union's position (20%).
3 Explain management's position (20%).
4 Relate the two positions to the contract language (20%).
5 Provide your analysis of the remedy (25%).
What is your remedy in the case and why?
Case 10 An Antinepotism Policy
THE ISSUE
Was the grievant Keith Walton properly discharged for allegedly violating the Company’s antinepotism policy? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
BACKGROUND
On January 5, 1999, grievant Keith W. Walton applied for work with the Company by filling out the Company’s employment application (C-1). In it, he reported that he
had no relatives employed by the Company. On April 30, 1999, he was hired as a Helper at the Manatee Power Plant and was continuously employed there (working his way up to journeyman mechanic status) for the next seven and one-half years.
In October 2006, the Company was informed that Mr. Walton had an uncle in its employ and when the grievant was thereupon specifically asked, on October 30, 2006, by Assistant Maintenance Superintendent Frank Hayes whether this allegation was in fact correct, he replied that it was. Later that day, Walton told Hayes that his uncle’s name was Bill Williams. On November 2, 2006, after waiting 3 days so that Walton’s medical insurance benefits would continue for an additional month, the Company discharged the grievant for violation of its antinepotism policy. Walton apparently did not know on January 5, 1999, that his uncle worked for the Company—learning of this fact only some time later—and it has been made quite clear...