Labour Law: Arbitration Case Study
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Labour Law: Arbitration Case Study
Summary
The case study is between a medium-sized technology-based in Kitchener, Ontario, and one of its employees (Julio Baptista). Baptista was a Union Steward in the company. Baptista is accused of insubordination and harassment. As a result, he is issued a termination letter. This does not settle down well with him, and as such, he decides to alert his union CATR that files a grievance claim arguing that there was no just cause for termination. The paper examines a case (Baptista (CATR) V Paktech) in which the law and submissions/analysis are presented. The article also briefly highlights why the decision to terminate the case was right.
Law
Ontarian law regulates the employer’s and employees’ actions whenever a contract is entered. Firstly, the employee is required to protect or ensure safe working conditions. From the case study presented for the arbitration process, the complainant (Baptista) did not adhere to this regulation. Secondly, the law requires an employee to safeguard the company information. This did not happen in the case of Baptista as captured articles 9 and 9-a (Ontario law, n.d). Thirdly, the complainant did not voice in a manner that does not harm the employer and the other employees.
By so doing, the complainant was dismissed on the grounds that; he attempted to injure, interfere with, or obstruct production. Secondly, he depicted gross misconduct and was disrespectful. This amounts to insubordination. Lastly, the employee endangered fellow employees through violation of safety rules.
Submission/Analysis
According to the law, Paktech Inc. was right to dismiss Baptista. Essentially, it is the exclusive function of the company to hire, discharge, and lay-off or to discipline the employees. Besides, the company establishes and enforces rules and regulations governing the conduct of the employees. As such, the company acted within its capacity to dismiss Baptista. This is because, firstly, he attempted to injure, interfere with, or obstruct production. Creating a fan page on Facebook and discussing delicate matters, for instance, how the company receives funds, was violating established laws and regulations. This is against the Ontarian law as captured in article 9 and article 9-a.
Secondly, the arbitrator should note that the company was right to dismiss the complainant on the basis that he was disorderly of immoral conduct and gross disrespectful behavior and insubordination. This is well captured in the Ontarian law – under article 25 (rights and obligations of the employer) (Ontario law, n.d). Using derogative comments and updating such information into the public domain was not proper to raise a grievance. Notably, the company top leadership did not get this information from within. The information reached the CEO through the ministry of industry. This implies that it reached out to many people in the public who rely on the company for services. This tarnished the name of the company. It painted the company black over something that would have been solved internally, and so the organization was right to offer the complainant a termination letter.
Lastly, the person, this CART is representing did violate law number 6. The law or the regulation discourages people from endangering fellow workers or their own through violation of safety rules. According to Ontarian law, the complainant disregarded articles 42 and 44, which acquaints an individual with the obligation to protect the employee’s personality and personal data (Ontario law, n.d). By posting someone’s salary scale and throwing terms about a fellow, the employee is unwarranted by the articles mentioned earlier, hence the action that Paktech Inc. took. The organization was right for the immediate action taken as this would have led to total company breakdown leading to loss of jobs and sources of livelihoods for many families. Exercising the pragmatic approach has not been disputed, and this qualifies the decision.
Reference
Ontario law (n.d). Labour regulation law. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/MONOGRAPH/71332/109716/F-1464727386/MKD71332%20Eng.pdf