Was the grievant, Laura Kuller, discharged for just cause? (your choices are: “yes, she was discharged for just cause
Was the grievant, Laura Kuller, discharged for just cause? (your choices are: “yes, she was discharged for just cause
ACTIVITY #3
Arbitration Case
DUE: Monday April 3rd, 12:20PM
Instructions
—Read the case “Theft or Honest Misunderstanding” at the end of these instructions prior to class (it will also be handed out in class).
–In class, ask for a volunteer to write up your group’s report for this activity. The volunteer will type and circulate your group’s answer to the questions below.
–As a group, come to a consensus on the questions below—1., 2., and 3. (if you cannot do so in class, you might have to either meet outside of class or come to a consensus via email):
1. Was the grievant, Laura Kuller, discharged for just cause? (your choices are: “yes, she was discharged for just cause” OR “no, she was not discharged for just cause”).
2. Regardless of your answer to #1, provide, in one well-written paragraph, the strongest arguments as why the discharge WAS for just cause. Also, provide in one well-written paragraph the strongest arguments as to why the discharge WAS NOT for just cause.
3. If your answer to #1. is NO, SHE WAS NOT DISCHARGED FOR JUST CAUSE, then you need to answer the question–what shall the remedy be? If you decide she was not discharged for just cause you need to take into account that at least six months would have gone by between the time she was discharged and the arbitrator ruled and that during that time she was not receiving pay. Options for remedies would include: she gets her job back with full backpay, she gets her job back with full backpay minus a suspension of some length during which she isn’t paid—i.e. one week, two weeks, etc., or she gets her job back with no backpay.
If your answer to #1. is yes, she was discharged for just cause, you do not need to answer this question (#3).
–Once you decide on your answers the person writing up the report should prepare a typed version of the answers and then CIRCULATE IT TO THE OTHER MEMBERS VIA EMAIL FOR SUGGESTIONS AND TO MAKE SURE ALL GROUP MEMBERS AGREE ON THE ANSWERS.
–Then that one person should submit your answers (just submit one copy), including the NAMES OF YOUR GROUP MEMBERs, to the Dropbox in CANVAS by Monday, April 3rd at 12:20PM. LATE SUBMISSIONS WILL BE PENALIZED.
–If you have any questions, email TA Katherine Schlegel at <kms784@psu.edu>
Activity #3, Spring 23
Grievance Case: Theft or Honest Misunderstanding?
Issues
- Was Laura Kuller discharged for just cause? 2. If not, what should the remedy be?
The grievant, Laura Kuller, was employed at the Central City Night Club for four years. No disciplinary action had been taken against her prior to her discharge on August 2, 2022. Then she was terminated for allegedly changing the server’s name on a customer’s check on July 19, 2022, so that she could obtain the $19.64 tip rather than the employee who provided the service. The following paragraphs present the key events that transpired on that evening.
On July 19, 2022, the grievant was one of four waitresses working the evening shift at the Central City Night Club. Her station was located in the club’s dancing area. At 8:00 p.m., one of the waitresses, Terri James, who was working in the same room away from the dance floor, wanted to leave early for the night, a practice allowed when business was slow. She obtained permission from management to leave after her customers moved forward to tables closer to the dancing area, which left her without anyone to serve. Among customers moving on the night in question was a party of three women who moved to a table in the grievant’s (Kuller’s) area.
Customers at the Club are charged a 17.5 % serving charge. This money is given to the waitress whose name appears on the check, and it is her primary source of earnings. When the party in question moved forward, James closed out the check with her name on it (the check included the cover charge and the cost of dinner and a round of drinks prior to and after dinner). It was undisputed she had served these items, for which her tip was $19.64. She then opened a new check with the grievant’s name on it, got the guests more drinks, and left. A second cover charge was not imposed, and the grievant continued to serve drinks to the party between 10:00-12:00 pm; her total service charge was $9.27.
Feeling that James had “skimmed the cream” by serving the customer dinner and including the cover charge on her bill, the grievant expressed unhappiness with her leaving early, causing the grievant to have to provide the customers the less lucrative part of their service. There was no dispute that the grievant informed the other waitresses and the assistant manager of what she intended to do. It was not disputed that before closing that night she retrieved the first check with James’s name on it and crossed it out, inserting her own name. The grievant made no attempt to hide what she had done, made the changes in front of other employees and the assistant manager, and told several other waitresses what she had done. While the grievant never informed James about what she did, the other waitresses did tell her. She reported it to the union shop steward, who informed management of the situation.
No written policy was presented by the employer concerning the changing of a server’s name on checks or the signing of some else’s name on them. The union, however, presented two employees who testified that they had seen other waitresses change names on checks in similar circumstances without anyone being reprimanded. Shortly after the termination of the grievant, the employer posted a written memo informing the waitresses such practices were prohibited.
On August 2, 2022, the club supervisor, Janet Thomas, upon being informed of the incident of July 19, 2022, called a meeting with the grievant and her union representative. At that meeting, the grievant admitted changing the check to get the tip for herself. Upon conclusion of the meeting, the decision was made to terminate the grievant.
Based on the above, the employer contended in its presentation to the arbitrator that what the grievant did constituted theft from another employee. It presented supporting arbitration cases that theft was an adequate ground for discharge, regardless of the value of the item or the employee’s work record. Therefore, the employer contended that the discharge of Kuller was for just cause pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
It was the union’s position that the conduct of Kuller did not constitute just cause for discharge within the meaning of Article VII (q)(l) of the CBA and that she should be reinstated to her former position with full back pay. The union questioned the existence of the rule against changing names on checks, and, if there was such a rule, it was not consistently enforced. The union further argued that the supporting cases named by the employer were unlike the present case in both facts and issues.
Pertinent Contract Provisions
Article VII(q)(1)
–No employee shall be discharged, suspended, or otherwise disciplined without just cause.
Article VII(q)(1)
–Except as limited by this contract, Central City Night Club retains the right to manage its workplace. Such rights include the adoption of rules and regulations, so long as they do not conflict with this contract, as well as the right to enforce such rules and regulations.
Answer preview for the paper on ‘Was the grievant, Laura Kuller, discharged for just cause? (your choices are: “yes, she was discharged for just cause’
APA 519 words
Click the purchase button below to download full answer…….