The case for Bainbridge Borough - Essay Example

1. As an attorney for Bainbridge Borough, I think that the council is right to reject Carol Fern’s unpaid maternity leave request. The town argues that maternity leave is for mothers of naturally-born infants, not adopted children, and therefore, Carole Fern is not entitled to maternity leave. Indeed, this is very true given that expectant mothers are entitled to apply for maternity leave. In this case, it can be seen that adoption is another different issue that does not apply to maternity leave.

There are many things that are considered when one goes for maternity leave. First and foremost, this person will undergo intensive labour to deliver the baby. This entitles the person to have some time to rest in order to be able to recover from the pain likely to be experienced during the period of giving birth. Secondly, the mother needs to nurse the newly born baby by suckling her and providing other necessary gentle care. Instead, Carol was offered two consecutive 90-day reasonable purpose leaves which amounted to 6 months of leave.

This is a relevant contract provision which states that leaves of absence for a limited period without pay—not to exceed 90 days—shall be granted for any reasonable purpose. What Carol wants is leave to be with her adopted baby so this unpaid leave is just as good as maternity leave. In other words, it can be seen that Carol just wants to be controversial over nothing since she has been given another alternative to maternity leave which is specifically meant for mothers who have given birth naturally. 2. As an attorney for AFSCME Local 10, I think the council’s rejection of Carol’s unpaid maternity leave request violated the collective bargaining agreement.

Article X, Section 4.A which deals with issues related to maternity as indicated by the final agreement between Bainbridge Borough and Local 10 state that maternity leaves not to exceed 6 months shall be granted at the request of an employee. As stipulated in this provision, it can be seen that Carole has requested for the leave, therefore she should be granted the opportunity to get it. Maternity leave covers various issues related to child bearing and rearing hence Carol should also be granted this leave since she intends to take care for her newly adopted baby.

The baby needs mother care and this is the reason why I believe that Carole should be granted the leave. The refusal by the council to grant Carol this leave can be regarded as discrimination since the law is very clear that this leave can be granted to the employee upon request. Therefore, the council should reconsider this provision of the law to include adoptive mothers since they also play the same tasks in caring for newly born babies. 3. As an arbitrator, I think I would not grant maternity leave to Carol on the basis of the fact that this leave should be applied in advance as soon as the expectant mother realises that she is pregnant.

Granting maternity leave to Carol would be tantamount to abuse of the collective bargaining agreement which applies to expectant mothers who will physically give birth to children not adoptive mothers. There is an alternative for Carol which grants unpaid leave of up to 90 days for the employees. This kind of leave is just equivalent to maternity leave which is being sought by Carol. To a large extent, I think Carol is overstepping her mandate by demanding something that clearly does not belong to her.

Maternity leave is for mothers who deliver babies. However, her case can be covered by the other provision that grants unpaid leaves to employees upon request.