HRES 2302 Labour Relations Grievance Assignment 10% of Final Mark Total Words – 500 - 750 words Purpose This individual assignment will focus on the grievance process and will be written in two parts. The first section will be written from the perspective of the union representative on behalf of the union member (written in proper letter format), the second section will be written from the perspective of the employee’s manager with the guidance of the Labour Relations Specialist (written in proper letter format). Scenario Joe is a construction worker in a large industrial plant working for ABC Construction. He is a unionized employee and belongs to the Construction Workers of Alberta Union, Local 606. On the morning of September 18, Joe was unable to find his protective gloves and he thought that he left them in a section of the plant that he had been working in the day prior. He no longer had authorization to work in that area of the plant as his work permit was only good for September 17, but he decided to go in to look for his protective gloves because he needed to wear them for next assignment. The protective gloves are a mandatory piece of PPE (personal protective equipment) required on the site. He figured that since he wasn’t working in that area of the plant, only looking for his gloves, that the work permit wouldn’t be an issue. Joe brought a member of his crew, Nadia, to look for his gloves with him. While looking for the gloves, Joe’s hard hat made contact with a panic button, causing the plant to stop operations. Joe did not immediately report this to his supervisor but continued to look for his gloves (which he couldn’t find), so he went to the tool crib and got a new pair of gloves in order to move onto the next job for the day. While driving in a company truck to the next area of the plant, Joe and Nadia heard commotion on the company radio, including a code which indicated a plant shutdown emergency. Joe knew that this code pertained to an emergency in the area of the plant that he and Nadia had just exited and realized that there must have been an issue with them being in there. He called his supervisor and stated that he had just been in that area of the plant looking for his gloves, and although he didn’t remember hitting any buttons, he may have unknowingly activated the panic switch. Joe’s supervisor immediately contacted plant security to manage the situation. The plant was back up and running within two hours, however the loss of productivity resulted in a loss of $500,000 to the company. The site Safety team of ABC Construction investigated (they are non-union employees), and Joe was terminated for cause the next day. Joe’s manager forgot to call the Shop Steward into the termination meeting. Nadia was found nonculpable but was issued a written warning for the safety infraction of being in an area of the plant that he didn’t have a valid work permit for. Joe has asked his union to file a grievance, as he believes that ABC Company did not have sufficient grounds for termination. Nadia does not wish to file a grievance and has accepted the discipline she was given. HRES 2302 Labour Relations Here are the facts of the situation • • Joe has been with ABC Construction for 6 years. The only discipline he has on file was for 3 days of unauthorized absence 4 years ago. Joe is a good employee with a positive attitude and is looked up to by junior members of the team. He started with ABC Construction as a carpenter and was promoted to Construction Lead 3 years ago. The Construction Lead position is a member of the bargaining unit (unionized). All employees complete ABC Construction’s annual Safety Policy reminder requirement, including a sign-off that they have read and understand the material. The Safety Policy portion includes the following: o o o Employees are strictly prohibited from being in any area of the plant without a valid work permit Employees must always wear proper PPE If any emergency alerts are triggered, the employee must contact his or her supervisor within 10 minutes in order to avoid a plant shutdown The plant security report states the following o o o o Joe and Nadia entered the impacted section of the plant at 8:06 a.m. The panic button was activated at 8:11 a.m. Joe and Nadia exited the impacted section of the plant at 8:16 a.m. Joe contacted his supervisor over the radio of the company truck at 8:29 a.m. Investigation information: A company Safety Representative, Julia, conducted separate interviews with Joe and Nadia. Investigation Conversation between the company’s Safety Representative, Julia and Joe Julia: Hi Joe, thank you for agreeing to meet with me today. The purpose of our meeting is to determine what happened during the morning of September 18 when there was a plant shutdown due to a panic button being activated. Were you in this area of the plant between the approximate hours of 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on September 18? Joe: Yes Julia: Were you aware that you did not have an active permit to enter the area during that time? Joe: Yes, however we had an active permit from the day before. I was not going there to perform work, only to look for a personal item I had misplaced, so I thought that I was allowed to enter the area of the plant. Julia: Do you remember hitting a panic button, either intentionally or accidently? Joe: I do not remember activating the button, but I suppose it could have happened if my hard hat hit it accidently Julia: At what point did you contact your supervisor? Joe: I called my supervisor within 10 minutes of leaving the plant. Julia: Why did you contact your supervisor: Joe: I heard commotion on the truck radio and based on the emergency code being called out, I know that it pertained to the area of the plant that we had recently left. Julia: Do you have any additional information to add? Joe: I am very sorry for what has happened. This was not intentional, and I would never break any of the rules on purpose. HRES 2302 Labour Relations Investigation Conversation between the company’s Safety Representative, Julia and Nadia Julia: Hi Nadia, thank you for agreeing to meet with me today. The purpose of our meeting is to determine what happened during the morning of September 18 when there was a plant shutdown due to a panic button being activated. Were you in this area of the plant between the approximate hours of 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on September 18? Nadia: Yes Julia: Were you aware that you did not have an active permit to enter the area during that time? Nadia: Yes, I was aware that we were not permitted to be in the area. I felt pressure to go with Joe, because he is a senior member of the crew, and he wanted me to go help him to look for his protective gloves, which he needed for the next job. I told him I didn’t think we should go into the plant without getting a new permit, but he said that as we weren’t technically working, it would be fine. Julia: Did you witness a panic button being activated either intentionally, or accidently? Nadia: I did not witness anything, however while we were still in the plant looking for the gloves, I remember Joe asking me if I heard an alarm. I told Joe that I hadn’t heard an alarm. Julia: When did Joe contact his supervisor? Nadia: While we were in the truck, driving to our next job, we heard commotion on the truck radio. We heard the emergency code associated with the area of the plant we were in. I told Joe that he should contact our supervisor immediately because the issue could have been related to us being in the area. Initially, Joe didn’t want to call our supervisor because he was worried about us getting in trouble for being in that area of the plant when we were not supposed to be there. I was able to convince him to make the call, as I told him that the consequences would be worse if we didn’t contact our supervisor. He agreed and made the call. Julia: Do you have any additional information to add? Nadia: I am very sorry for any trouble this has caused. I feel badly about the situation and I don’t want Joe to be in any trouble. He is usually a very good co-worker. I think he just used some poor judgement in this circumstance. The Collective Agreement between ABC Construction and the Construction Workers of Alberta Union Local 606 states the following. • • • Termination for cause must be based on an egregious act of willful intent or willful neglect after a thorough investigation is conducted Violation of safety absolutes may result in termination without cause A Shop Steward must be present for all termination meetings HRES 2302 Labour Relations Assignment Sections 1. Grievance filed by Union on behalf of the member: From the perspective of a union representative, write a formal grievance to the organization on behalf of the member. The grievance must include the following parts, and must be presented in proper letter format: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. Elements of a business letter (addresses, greeting, etc.) Introduction Type of grievance being filed The situation from the perspective of the union member (employee) The articles of the collective agreement the union believes is being violated Remedy proposed by the union 2. Manager’s response to the union’s grievance: From the perspective of the employee’s manager and with guidance from the Labour Relations Specialist, write a formal grievance response to the union. The grievance response must include the following parts: i. ii. iii. iv. v. Elements of a business letter (addresses, greeting, etc.) Introduction Description of investigation performed, or data gathered to determine employer’s position The employer’s position on the grievance Remedy proposed (if any) by the employer to the union This assignment should be between two and three pages of content in length. You must follow Bow Valley College policies with respect to Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism. This is taken very seriously at the College and even if dishonesty or plagiarism is unintentional, it is my obligation to report it. Also, know that taking credit for work you did not contribute to is also considered Academic Dishonesty and will be reported. Your assignment needs to be presented in a professional manner. You must use Turnitin on the assignment, prior to me marking the assignment. Remember to give yourself 24 hours for the software to accurately generate a report. Please see the rubric for details on the marking criteria. Criteria Exceptional 9-10 Very good 7-8 Acceptable 5-6.5 Needs Improvement 0-4.5 Professional written presentation The paper is properly formatted as a business letter. The writing is easy to follow and appropriate for the intended audience. The paper is formatted as a business letter. The writing is easy to follow and appropriate for the intended audience. The paper is formatted as a letter but may not include all elements of a business letter. The writing is organized The paper is formatted as a letter but may not include all elements of a business letter. The writing is organized (Learning outcome: Demonstrate prof essional attitudes and behaviours in HRES 2302 Labour Relations Criteria Exceptional 9-10 Very good 7-8 Acceptable 5-6.5 interpersonal skills and writing.) The writing is free of grammar, spelling, and mechanical errors. The writing is mostly free of grammar, spelling, and mechanical errors. The errors do not interfere with understanding the argument. but may not always be easy to follow. Sources are cited appropriately using current APA guidelines both intext and in a reference page. Grievance from the union perspective (Learning outcome: Evaluate a workplace grievance and make recommendations for resolution.) Manager’s response to the grievance The paper effectively presents the grievance from the union perspective. Integration of the set of facts and the workplace grievance procedure are used to develop an argument. Sources are cited using current APA guidelines both intext and in a reference page. The paper effectively presents the grievance from the union perspective. Integration of the set of facts and the workplace grievance procedure are used to develop an argument. The writing has some grammar, spelling, or mechanical errors. Sources are cited but may not use current APA guidelines for both in-text and in a reference page. Needs Improvement 0-4.5 but may not always be easy to follow. The writing has some grammar, spelling, or mechanical errors. The errors interfere with understanding the argument. Citation of sources may be missing or incomplete. The paper presents the grievance from the union perspective. Integration of the set of facts and the workplace grievance procedure are used to develop an argument. The paper may not present the grievance from the union perspective. The set of facts and the workplace grievance procedure are not well integrated into the development of an argument. Some essential information is included, yet ideas are not well explained or supported. Irrelevant information may have been included. The paper may not present the manager’s response to the grievance or lacks All essential information is included, and ideas are fully explained and supported. Irrelevant information has been omitted. All essential information is included, and ideas are explained. Some irrelevant information may have been included. Most essential information is included, yet some ideas are not well explained or supported. Irrelevant information may have been included. The paper effectively presents the manager’s response to the grievance and The paper effectively presents the manager’s response to the grievance and The paper presents the manager’s response to the grievance and includes guidance HRES 2302 Labour Relations Criteria (Learning outcome: Evaluate a workplace grievance and make recommendations for resolution.) Exceptional 9-10 Needs Improvement 0-4.5 includes guidance includes guidance from the Labour guidance from the from the Labour from the Labour Relations Specialist. Labour Relations Relations Specialist. Relations Specialist. Integration of the Specialist. The set Integration of the Integration of the set of facts and the of facts and the set of facts and the set of facts and the workplace workplace workplace workplace grievance grievance grievance grievance procedure are used procedure are not procedure are used procedure are used to develop an well integrated into to develop an to develop an argument. the development of argument. argument. an argument. All essential information is included, and ideas are fully explained and supported. Irrelevant information has been omitted. The resolution is justifiable. Very good 7-8 Acceptable 5-6.5 All essential information is included, and ideas are explained. Some irrelevant information has been omitted. The resolution is justifiable. Most essential information is included, yet some ideas are not well explained. Irrelevant information may have been included. The resolution is justifiable. Some essential information is included, yet some ideas are not well explained. Irrelevant information may have been included. The resolution is may not be justifiable. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment