Essay on Week 2 Case Study 10 an Anti-Nepotism Policy

2239 Words Jan 20th, 2013 9 Pages
| Case Study 10 | An Anti-Nepotism Policy | | [Type the author name] | |

[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of the document.] |

Table of Contents 1. Describe the issues in the case 2 2. Provide a clear explanation of the union’s position 2 3. Explain management’s position 4 4. Relate the two positions to the contract language 5 5. Discuss your analysis of the remedy 6 Bibliography 9

1. Describe the issues in the case
On November 2, 2006 Journeyman Mechanic Keith Walton was discharged for violating the anti-nepotism policy
…show more content…
The practice predates World War II but it didn’t become written policy until 1977 in a manual only published for the five divisional personnel managers. It was written officially in the 1995 operations manual which is 4 years before the grievant was hired. In 1998 it was published in the employee handbook, which governs all employees, that employees may be discharged for violation of the anti-nepotism policy (Sloane & Witney, 2011). This policy has been enforced consistently on exactly 23 different occasions, three or four of those occasions’ involved Union workers. In all instances the last employee hired was terminated, which is also what happened in this instance. The Company has always stood on the basis that the less-senior employee has always been terminated. Over the 40-plus years of the no-relative rule, uncle has always been included in defining relative. The Company cites the Honaker v. Florida Power & Light Co., et al., Case No. 91-113-OrlCiv-Y, where the court states the case could have been dismissed solely on the basis of the Company’s longstanding ‘no-relative’ rule but in fact dismissed Honaker for making a false statement on his employment application (Sloane & Witney, 2011). The Company is exercising its rights from Paragraph 4 of the collective bargaining agreement which gives exclusive rights to hire and exercise full control

Related Documents