Question 1, Page 628. According to Reynolds, “arbitrators are generally reluctant to sustain discipline for off duty conduct unless there is some nexus or connection to the job” (Reynolds, 2010). Generally an employee’s conduct while off duty or away from the place of business is viewed as personal matters and the company has no business interfering with employee’s personal lives. It is just cause discharge if it is established that the employees misconduct off duty adversely affects the employers reputation or when the off duty misconduct leads to the refusal or inability of other employees to work with the employee on the job.
Question 2 Page 628. Nexus is the connection between off duty misconduct and how it affects employment (Holley, …show more content…
628. I believe equal treatment does have a bearing on the outcome of the case, however management should not require a different standard than the nexus principle when the Postal Service, seeks to regulate the off-duty conduct of its employees. Management must also establish just cause. It is unknown in the other arbitrator decisions, if management established just cause or if the Postal Service established a nexus between the grievant’s conduct and the employment relationship. Further, it is also unknown the grievants positions on the other arbitrator decisions and whether their off duty conduct in some way harmed their current employment …show more content…
Lee’s job performance should be given any weight. This was not a minor performance infraction under which normal progressive discipline would have been applied. Management conducted an internal investigation allowing Mr. Lee to argue his case. Following the investigation, management found no merit to Mr. Lee’s explanation. Mr. Lee violated Section 2635.101(a) of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch as he pled guilty to a crime where the public and the Postal Service had lost trust in him. The Postal Service has the right to discipline employees if there is a nexus to the off duty conduct.
Question 6, Page 628: No, the arbitrator should not use the Union’s submission of evidence of continued employment for Ms. Edwards. Mr. Lee and Ms. Edwards were not similarly situated employees because Ms. Edwards was not a bargaining unit employee, did not plead guilty, and was not found guilty. Employees not covered by a bargaining unit, do not have the same union protections or grievance rights as bargaining
Question 2 Page 628. Nexus is the connection between off duty misconduct and how it affects employment (Holley, …show more content…
628. I believe equal treatment does have a bearing on the outcome of the case, however management should not require a different standard than the nexus principle when the Postal Service, seeks to regulate the off-duty conduct of its employees. Management must also establish just cause. It is unknown in the other arbitrator decisions, if management established just cause or if the Postal Service established a nexus between the grievant’s conduct and the employment relationship. Further, it is also unknown the grievants positions on the other arbitrator decisions and whether their off duty conduct in some way harmed their current employment …show more content…
Lee’s job performance should be given any weight. This was not a minor performance infraction under which normal progressive discipline would have been applied. Management conducted an internal investigation allowing Mr. Lee to argue his case. Following the investigation, management found no merit to Mr. Lee’s explanation. Mr. Lee violated Section 2635.101(a) of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch as he pled guilty to a crime where the public and the Postal Service had lost trust in him. The Postal Service has the right to discipline employees if there is a nexus to the off duty conduct.
Question 6, Page 628: No, the arbitrator should not use the Union’s submission of evidence of continued employment for Ms. Edwards. Mr. Lee and Ms. Edwards were not similarly situated employees because Ms. Edwards was not a bargaining unit employee, did not plead guilty, and was not found guilty. Employees not covered by a bargaining unit, do not have the same union protections or grievance rights as bargaining