Your assignment is to provide short answers [2-3 paragraphs] to each of the following questions related to that decision. Your answers must fully address the question and your rationale. When answering these questions use supporting labour laws/rationale and other labour law cases that may be applicable, as this is an important component!
- Do you support the decision reached by the arbitrator or would you have decided the matter differently – why or why not? More specifically, would you have
- found the employee not guilty of misconduct; or
- would you have substituted a lesser penalty such as a suspension and if so, of what duration?
- At paragraph 76, the arbitrator dismisses the grievor’s notion that the employer has set a precedent by accommodating “Mr. B” at KNP while his driver’s license was suspended. In your opinion, could the union have raised a legitimate estoppel argument – why or why not?
- At paragraph 60, the grievor’s representative cites 7:2200 and 7:2300 of Canadian Labour Arbitration. Do you believe that these sections support the arguments being advanced on behalf of the grievor – why or why not?
- The arbitrator obviously believes that the grievor is being less than fully honest regarding his testimony [see sections 68 and 71]. Do you feel this is a fair conclusion for the arbitrator to have reached – why or why not?
- The Employer’s representative states in reply to the union’s arguments that “The physical and verbal assaults towards Mr. Bakker are sufficient grounds for the termination of employment.” Given that those events transpired outside of the workplace, do you support the Employer’s representative’s conclusion – why or why not?