The Issue.
Mrs. Keith Walton was terminated from employment on January 2006 for allegedly violating the anti-nepotism company policy. The union contest that the company has no right to enforce against the bargaining unit when polices are ill-defined and in consistently applied.
Facts:
1. 1995 Employment of relatives rule in included in General Operational Manual – Not all employee have access to it. Use of word “antinepotism” term used in this manual.
2. In 1998 employee hand book is published using “antinepotism” language.
3. 01/05/1999 Keith W. Walton applies for employment and declares that he had no relatives working in the company. He did not know of his uncle being hired at that time.
4. 04/30/1999 Keith W. Walton is hired as a helper
5. 2003 Employment of Relatives policy is inserted in employee handbook.
6. 10/2006 Confused supervisor tells employee not to worry after learning that he had a relative at work after he asked whether he was related by blood or marriage.
7. 11/02/2006 Termination of Keith Walton
8. Company has a well established and consistently enforced with past precedent examples of their “employment of relatives” policy which prohibits the hiring of relatives since 1995
9. Language of such a rule, use the word “may” (be discharged) as opposed to “shall” be discharged. Is in the handbook.
Company’s Position.
1. Union is trying to obtain through arbitration what they fail to obtain during negotiations the repealing or change in interpretation of the policy relating to the employment of relatives.
2. Company argues long standing, consistent enforcement and well know antinepotism policy.
3. Company argues that language of the employee handbook “May” vs. “Shall” is only semantics and that precedence shows that this type of violation has always lead to termination.
The Union Position:
1. To begin, the union argues that the policy