Question

from book the labor relations process 11th edition-holley, ross, wolters case study 7-1

2.    It has been said that “ignorance of the law is no excuse for avoiding criminal punishment. To what extent is “ignorance to the law” a reasonable defense for avoiding termination in employment? To what extent did managers bear responsibility for Mr. Haier’s becoming informed about how the state Workers’ Compensation program works?

3.    Many points made by Zooming-Arrow managers involved Mr. Haier’s actions that did not involve the company; they involved his relationship to Wistful Vista bus lines. To what extent should the arbitrator consider actions taken by an employee while “moonlighting” for another employer?

4.    Did managers disregard proper procedure when they disciplined Mr. Hair? Justify your answer. How much weigh should arbitrators give procedural propriety or impropriety when deciding a case like this one?

5.    If you were the arbitrator, how would you rule? Justify your decision.

Answer 1

1. It has been said that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” for avoiding criminal punishment. To what extent is “ignorance of the law” a reasonable defense for avoiding termination in employment? To what extent did managers bear responsibility for Mr. Haier’s becoming informed about how the state Workers Compensation program works?

• Mistake of law is powerless protection "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Oversight of law would be if the individual realized that he or she was offering cocaine, however genuinely trusted that it was legitimate to do as such. In this case Mr. Haier dissimilar to slip-up of reality, this would not diminish you of risk. It might appear to be marginally unjustifiable that the individual who was basically sufficiently imbecilic to trust that the white powder was preparing pop gets off, yet the well meaning individual who sincerely thought it was lawful to auction cocaine doesn't get. Be that as it may, permitting numbness of the law as a guard would debilitate individuals from taking in the law and undermine the adequacy of the legitimate framework.

2. Many points made by Zooming-Arrow managers involved Mr. Haier’s actions that did not involve the company; they involved his relationship to Wistful Vistas bus lines. To what extent should the arbitrator consider actions taken by an employee while “moonlighting” for another employer?

• Managers can train or release representatives for taking a break offense. Managers commonly should demonstrate if and how the taking a break lead affects the business, profitability, and working associations with different representatives. Open bosses, be that as it may, are more disparaging of enjoying some downtime unfortunate behavior, particularly from the individuals who come in direct contact with the general population consistently, for example, instructors, cops, and firefighters. Open division managers will probably train their representatives for the unfortunate behavior than their private part partners for a similar offense.

3. Did managers disregard proper procedure when they disciplined Mr. Haier? Justify your answer. How much weight should arbitrators give procedural propriety or impropriety when deciding a case like this one.

• There are numerous ways that representatives lead inside and outside of work can influence a business' notoriety, the relationship and in addition numerous outcomes for the activities. This report will address taking a break lead and criticism and showcases that are significant.

4. If you were the arbitrator, how would your rule? Justify your decision.

• Arbitrators have been hesitant to manage discipline for enjoying some downtime offense unless there is som association with the occupation. While for the most part the worker's direct far from the place of business is seen as none of the businesses business, there is a huge when it is set up that the representatives unfortunate behavior off-the premises detrimentally affects the businesses notoriety or result of when the taking a break misconduct prompts the refusal or hesitance or failure of different representatives to work with the employee at work.