The Officer A was in pursuit of the suspect after taking into consideration the safety of the public. The officer managed to arrest the suspect after his motorbike broke down. In his statement, the officer asserted that he was alarmed that the motorbike of the accused would break down and since the suspect had broken the law and was armed, he was likely to steal a car.
As an arbitrator, one would heed to the pleas of officer A since his action was in a manner that was beneficial and necessary for the welfare and safety of the public. The officer arrested the suspected to safeguard the public from the armed suspect.
Yes, one would easily change officer A’s punishment from a day suspension to a written warning because the officer acted in the manner he did for the safety and welfare of the public. He tried to protect the public from the armed suspect without the fear of any punishment.
Since the officer intended to safeguard the public from the suspect and that he wasn’t in pursuit of the accused, he should be given just the warning letter directing him to obey the supervisor’s instructions.
The officer command lays down the regulations and rules for those officers who search the occupants of another’s motor vehicle. The officers have the authority and right to lay off a chaser in case the safety of the public is compromised. To instill discipline to the officers, the command can lay off or dismiss the officers who break these orders.
CASE STUDY 11-2 Sleeping On the Job
Yes, the treatment by the company of the grievant for the two “sleeping on the job” occurrences greatly influences the outcome in this case. This is because, despite the fact that the first two incidents were served with warning letters indicating termination from the job if the same incidents happen again, the third incident still proved that the doer was careless.
The grievant repeated the incident in spite of being issued with written safety observation card barring sleeping during working hours. Furthermore, a counselling conference was held with the grievant to enlighten him and everyone else on safety measures. Additionally, the company requested the grievant to submit a note from a doctor indicating his physical problems if there are any.
The company has just cause for dismissing the grievant because of violating the safety rules in each incident. In one incident, the grievant left the truck out of gear while the safety break was on. On another incident, the grievant was found sleeping on the job. Additionally, the motor of the car was running with gears not engaged. All these incidents point out to the carelessness of the grievant, hence, his dismissal by the company was fair and just. The company had tried to be lenient with him in every incident until it could bear no more.
No, the argument of the Union that the grievant only ‘appeared to be sleepy’ isn’t credible unless testimony is provided by the backhoe driver, who is also the grievant fellow union member. After committing the first two mistakes, it was hard for anyone to believe him. His excuse was also completely vague.
YOU BE THE ARBITRATOR
The arbitrator discovered that both parties had the idea that determination of the so-called “12:00 am” is subject to common usage as well as the dictionary definition. With this in mind, it is evident that the language of Section 5.1 (B) could be ambiguous even though this section doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Its language may be made clear through being clarified by language contained in other sections of the Agreement. When the language of the other sections is examined, the arbitrator notes that Saturday is considered as part of the workweek. Article V, Section 5.5 (A) (4), asserts that overtime shall be paid on Saturdays and Sundays consecutively but not on Saturday or Sunday as is the case. Lastly, the 1998 Letter of Understanding reaffirms the conclusion made. The article acknowledges that employees pay period normally run from Sunday and through Saturday. Therefore, when the Labor Agreement is taken as a whole, it clarifies the language of Article V, Section 5.1(B) through defining the basic workweek to be inclusive of Saturday. Consequently, the grievance is denied.
Section 5.5 (D) (9), provides that if Weekends are regularly scheduled as part of the week days, then they shall not be treated as work extra days for the sake of seniority claiming. According to this section, Saturday is, therefore, part of the work days. This only confirms the understanding of the employer about the 12 A.M to P.M confusion.
Since the employer had inherited the contract as a result of purchasing the business, it could have been possible to discuss with the union earlier the issues likely to crop up in future. Alternatively, after the employer made up his mind that he would increase production, he could have met with the union and discuss any perceived differences in what is provided for in the CBA.