Dismissing an Employee: Close Call - Research Paper Example

Dismissing an Employee: Close CallThe decision taken by the companies in dismissing an employee must be within the rules already specified. When an employee is dismissed, proper reasons must be stated. The employers may not expect their sudden dismissal. The company, employee and the union are all affected by the close call. As none of them expect this sort of a situation, it becomes difficult for the company to make a decision immediately. Every company has its own rules and regulations. The company sets a framework to be followed by the employees.

If an employee is found to be opposing or not following their rules, the company has the power and rights to dismiss them without prior notice. The company takes an action against the employee in such situations which is unavoidable. Most of the companies allow the employees to have a union which can address the problems and grievances of the employees. Dismissing an employee immediately causes difficulty to the employee as well as the company. Since it is unexpected, the employee and the company will suffer.

Distinguish between the Weingarten case cited by the union and the Baton Rouge Water Works case cited by the company. Is there a clear demarcation between the major considerations in these cases? Discuss. Weingarten case states that a company must allow the employee to have a union representative during a discussion with the management. If an employee has been called for an interview for misconduct or any other reason he has the right to request for a union member. If the company does not permit the employee, the company can be held under Labor act.

Water works case does not emphasize the procedure of permitting the employee to have a union member during a meeting. There is a drastic difference between both the cases, since one helps the employee, while the other works in favor of the company.Should an employer permit an employee to have a union representative present in a meeting whenever an employee requests this? Explain. The company may conduct such interviews or meetings which decides the employee’s future in the company. In this situation the employee may require a union representative to help them in expressing their views better.

As the union member knows the difficulties of the employee, he can assist them in proving their innocence. Hence the employer must permit an employee to have a union representative during a meeting. Under Section 7 of LMRA, which speaks of protected "concerted activities" and "mutual aid or protection," the NLRB in 1982 held that an unrepresented employee had the right to have a co-worker present during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believed could lead to disciplinary action.

In 1985, the NLRB reversed itself and held that only employees represented by a labor union had the (Weingarten) right to representation during an investigatory interview. However, in 2000, a different NLRB ruled that nonunion workers did have the (Weingarten) right to request that a co-worker accompany them to investigatory interviews that could have disciplinary action as an outcome. Why is this area of "unsettled" labor law apt to become a major judicial issue at some time in the future? Discuss.

The laws passed regarding this issue seems to be unsettled. Each time an act is passed; either the employee or the employers are unsatisfied. The law can be in favor of the company or the employee. The employers do not agree with the decision of permitting a union representative at the time of an interview. But the employees continue to stress on this issue and they expect the law to be in favor of them. Since the employer and the employee do not accept and follow these labor law acts, this will become a major judicial issue at some time in the future.

Refer to Case 56, "Discharge because of the Hotel Guest's Complaint," in order to see how "Weingarten rights" can become significant in determination of a discharge grievance-arbitration case. Weingarten rights emphasizes that a company must approve the request of including a union member in the interview. This will help the employees in a situation if they are found to be innocent. In this case of discharge due to guest’s complaint, the employee seems to be the verdict of the situation. Here Weingarten rights would help in deciding the employees stay in the company after the meeting.

This right becomes a significant part in determining the discharge of an employee in these cases.