Even the smartest students need writing assistance at some point during their academic career. Should you lock yourself in a room and spend the entire weekend trying to write a paper? We promise you that the paper that you pay for won’t be resold or submitted elsewhere. It will also be written according to the instructions that you and your professor provide. Our excellent essays stand out among the rest for a reason. Don’t just take our word, check them out by yourself.
Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Chapter 14 Case Study 2: The Arbitration Case of Jesse Stansky
Goal: Read the attached and review the selected case study from the required text, and answer the analysis questions.
Format Requirements: Each answer is to be clear and concise, and students will lose points for improper grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Journal articles and books, if used, must be referenced according to APA style
You are to submit a file with a Microsoft word (.doc/.docx), rich text format (rtf), or a pdf file of your assignment.
Submission Requirements: Please answer the questions at the end of the case for this case study. Your answers must present a research-based rationale (citing outside sources) when appropriate. For other questions, you are to use your knowledge of other business areas, your creativity, and own experience to provide solutions, recommendations, scenarios, and/or justifications in your response. Cases are due Sunday at 9:00 PM ET.
From: Snell, S.A. & Morris, S.H. (2019). Managing Human Resources(18th ed.) (p. XX). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, INC.
Case Study 2.The Arbitration Case of Jesse Stansky
At the arbitration hearing, both parties were adamant in their positions. Nancy Huang, HR manager of Phoenix Semiconductor, argued that the grievant, Jesse Stansky, was justly terminated for arguing and hitting a coworker—a direct violation of company policy and the employee handbook. Stansky argued that he had been a good employee during his 10 years of employment.
The submission agreement governing the case read, “It is the employer’s position that just cause existed for the discharge of Mr. Jesse Stansky and the penalty was appropriate for the offense committed.” Additionally, the employer introduced into evidence the labor agreement, which defined just cause termination as follows:
Just cause shall serve as the basis for disciplinary action and includes, but is not limited to: dishonesty, inefficiency, unprofessional conduct, failure to report absences, falsification of records, violation of company policy, destruction of property, or possession or being under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
Stansky was hired as a systems technician on November 20, 2003, a position he held until his termination on October 25, 2017. According to the testimony of Huang, Phoenix Semiconductor strived to maintain a positive and cordial work environment among its employees. Fighting on the job was strictly prohibited. Stansky’s performance evaluation showed him to be an average employee, although he had received several disciplinary warnings for poor attendance and one 3-day suspension for a “systems control error.” Stansky was generally liked by his coworkers, and several testified on his behalf at the arbitration hearing.
The termination of Stansky concerned an altercation between himself and Gary Lindekin, another systems technician. According to witnesses to the incident, both Stansky and Lindekin became visibly upset over the correct way to calibrate a sensitive piece of production equipment. The argument—one witness called it no more than a heated disagreement—lasted approximately 3 minutes and concluded when Stansky was seen forcefully placing his hand on Lindekin’s shoulder. Lindekin took extreme exception to Stansky’s behavior and immediately reported the incident to management. After interviews with both Stansky and Lindekin and those who observed the incident, Huang, Samantha Lowry, the employee’s immediate supervisor, and Grant Ginn, department manager, decided that Stansky should be terminated for unprofessional conduct and violation of company policy.
1. Which arguments should be given more weight: those based on company policy, the employee handbook, and the labor agreement or mitigating factors given by the grievant and his witnesses? Explain.
2. How might unprofessional conduct be defined? Explain.
3. If you were the arbitrator, how would you rule in this case? Explain fully the reasons for your decision.
Snell, S.A. & Morris, S.H. (2019). Managing Human Resources(18th ed.) (p. XX). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, INC.