------------------------------------------------- case study 1-nepotism
HRM 586
September 14, 2014 by Rosmery Soto
September 14, 2014 by Rosmery Soto

Case Study-Nepotism
Issues in the case: 1. The first issue would be the no-relative rule, which the company is arguing, to be a long-standing policy, and has been enforced consistently in the past with the less-senior employee being terminated in each case. The anti-nepotism policy in the company predates World War II, and has been in writing since 1977. It was officially incorporated in the manual in 1995, and has been a part of the employees’ handbook since 1998. Paragraph 4 of the collective bargaining agreement gives the company the power to exercise full control and discipline over its employees without any restriction to enforce no-relative policy. The issue to be considered is If this long-standing no-relative rule by the company was properly enforced as well as what consistency exists between the company’s no-relative rule and Anti-nepotism Policy, and does Paragraph 4 violates the employee’s right to provide justification for the alleged offence. 2. The second issue to be considered is that whether the Union is attempting to change the Anti-nepotism; the union has brought issues the company Is alleging were previously rejected by them during the 2003 bargaining period, and thus, according to Co. Brief, p.14, the Union cannot attempt to obtain through arbitration what it has failed to do through negotiations.
Union Position
The Union makes several arguments in defense of Mr. Walton. First, the Union argues that the employee manual is not made readily available to employees. The Union testifies that, employees had very limited knowledge of and access to the Company’s General Operations Manual and that it is only in these relatively unknown manuals that this policy is in written form.