Essay about Case 10: Anti-Nepotism

2462 Words Apr 7th, 2013 10 Pages
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
Keller graduate school of management | hrm 586: labor relations
-------------------------------------------------
Case study 10
An Anti-nepotism policy
XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
Keller graduate school of management | hrm 586: labor relations
-------------------------------------------------
Case study 10
An Anti-nepotism policy

CASE OVERVIEW
Mr. Keith Walton applied for a job at Manatee Power plant by filling out application form (C-1) on January 5, 1999. The (C-1) form specifically asked the applicant whether or not he/she had any relatives employed at the company, to which Mr. Walton answered “no”. He was hired by Manatee Power Plant on April 30, 1999 where he worked until his release on November 2, 2006. Mr.
…show more content…
Upon doing so, the Union brings forth a third point of contention by the definition of the word itself. According to the Union, “nepotism” is defined as, “…the act of one relative bestowing or exercising favoritism upon another relative” and they argue that there is no proof whatsoever that Mr. Walton benefited in any way from his uncle’s employment with the company. The Union contends that in this case due to the above listed circumstances and the fact that Mr. Walton worked for the company and had been promoted within, he should be reinstated and “made whole” due to “improper discharge”. MANAGEMENT POSITION
Manatee Power Company intends to stand behind their discharge of Mr. Walton based on three grounds. The first is that the Company feels that the union is using this case as an “improper forum” to change company policy through arbitration in this case, even though they have not been able to successfully change the policy through contract negotiations which is the correct channel for the parties to discuss and amend policies. The company’s policy prevailed and the Union’s amendments were not added during contract negotiations, so to try and change them by arguing improper discharge at this juncture would be highly inappropriate and would serve to undermine contract negotiations by giving the union a “back door” to push ideas not brought up or not successfully implemented

Related Documents