Hrm 586 Anit Nepotism

1. Issues in the case

There seems to be multiple issues in this case, which the arbitrator has to take into consideration before making a ruling. One would be that the union has brought issues the company Is alleging were previously rejected by them during the 2003 bargaining period, and thus, according to Co. Brief, p.14, the Union cannot attempt to obtain through arbitration what it has failed to do through negotiations. The issue to be considered is that whether the Union is attempting to change the Anti-nepotism Policy through this improper forum.

The second issue would be the no-relative rule, which the company is arguing, to be a long-standing policy, and has been enforced consistently in the past with the less-senior employee being terminated in each case. The anti-nepotism policy in the company predates World War II, and has been in writing since 1977. It was officially incorporated in the manual in 1995, and has been a part of the employees’ handbook since 1998. Paragraph 4 of the collective bargaining agreement gives the company the power to exercise full control and discipline over its employees without any restriction to enforce no-relative policy. The issue to be considered is If this long-standing no-relative rule by the company was properly enforced as well as what consistency exists between the company’s no-relative rule and Anti-nepotism Policy, and does Paragraph 4 violates the employee’s right to provide justification for the alleged offence. Over all the arbitrator has to decide whether the grievant Keith Walton properly discharged for allegedly violating the Company’s anti-nepotism policy, If not, what is the appropriate remedy?

Nepotism can be a reference to employment preferences that are given to relatives. The factors usually taken into consideration when considering an applicant is not reviewed when nepotism is in play. It is mostly seen in the private sectors due to the fact that there are no universal laws that govern nepotism in the...