Medical Facility HR Management and Whistleblower Activity

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Whistleblower Activity
Violation of Confidentiality
Landrum-Griffith Act
Refusal to provide requested information
Campaign Threats or Implied Promise of Benefit?
Representing Non-Unionized Employees
Arrest and Termination
Discharge for Off-Duty Conduct

Whistleblower Activity

It is an offense for an organization to dismiss its employees without following the due process. The residential medical facility terminated the services of Janet Broom and Darla Miller due to their whistleblower activity. The federal Court of Appeals should reverse the decision of the trial court.

Broom and Miller engaged in whistleblower activity for the good of the public and the organization. The Uniform Control Dangerous Substances Act makes it a criminal offense for an individual to steal a controlled dangerous substance. Broom and Miller adhered to this act.

If Broom and Miller were unionized employees, the medical facility would not have terminated them. This is because they would have more bargaining power. It would have ensured fair representation of the employees. The union would have required the medical facility to follow the due process before terminating the employees. Therefore, the medical facility may have issued warnings or suspensions instead of terminations.

Violation of Confidentiality

Companies strive to ensure that they maintain their competitive edge. Confidentiality agreement prevents employees from leaking certain vital information to rivals of the company. ReadyPro Company applied the confidentiality agreement appropriately.

The confidentiality agreement helped in protecting the company from rivals. The terms of employment may provide insights into how a company reduces its operational costs. Therefore, it is vital for an organization to ensure that it maintains the secrecy of the terms of employment.

According to Martinez, the confidentiality agreement was very broad. Therefore, it did not provide a detailed instruction on what is confidential. The confidentiality agreement did not specify how the employee should handle reimbursement issues.

Martinez did not have a formal agreement with ReadyPro on how she would receive reimbursements for use of her personal computer. Instead, she made an agreement with the San Antonio project manager. Since the company did not complain about the agreement with the San Antonio project manager, it would be wrong for it to claim later that she disclosed vital information.

Martinez received reimbursements from the San Antonio project manager. In so doing, she did not deal directly with her employer. Therefore, if there was a reduction in reimbursement it was logical that Martinez would inform the project manager about the reduction. Therefore, her termination was illegal.

Landrum-Griffith Act

Almost half of the members of Local 1 understand only Spanish. Therefore, the union should ensure that it caters for the needs of the members who only understand Spanish. According to Section 101(a) of the Landrum Griffin Act, a labor organization should give its members equal rights. The labor organization should ensure that various factors do not restrict the participation of members in various activities of the organization.

Therefore, using only English during the monthly meetings restricts the participation of Spanish speaking members. Local 1 should correct this by hiring a professional interpreter during the meetings. This would ensure that the interpreter gives the correct interpretation of various words.

It is illegal for local 1 to adopt a rule that requires all candidates for various offices to be proficient in both English and Spanish. This is because this would lock out a sizeable percentage of members of the union from vying for positions. This move would only benefit a few members who are proficient in English and Spanish.

Refusal to provide requested information

The employer may refuse to provide sensitive information that relates to its performance to labor unions. The information may be one of the major factors that determine the competitiveness of the organization. In addition, restricting information access prevents leakage of sensitive information.

The company should provide employees and labor unions with documents relating to the merit pay plan. This would enable the union to ensure that the company does not exploit employees.

The company is under no obligation to provide healthcare information of non-bargaining members. This is because the union does not represent these employees. However, the company should provide information on its current financial situation.

Campaign Threats or Implied Promise of Benefit?

The employer’s did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the LMRA. The employer was simply informing the employees about the activities of unions. This enabled the employees to know what is at stake prior to joining the union. In addition, the employer’s statements do not constitute unlawful benefits, which violate Section 8(a) (1) of the LMRA.

The employer was pointing out the fact that the company has one of the most favorable compensation packages. The company voluntarily offers the employees good working condition.

The employer stated the new programs that the company was making to enable the employees give the company a chance to prove that it had their interest at heart. Supervisors Bates and Lofton did not violate Section 8(a) (1) of LMRA in their interrogation. The supervisors did not offer any threats or promises to the employees.

The NLRB should not consider the totality of conduct doctrine. This is because the employer did not coerce the employees not to join the labor unions. The employer simply stated how the labor unions would affect their activities. The employer used the leaflets that the union had distributed to show the effects of unions. Therefore, the NLRB should not rule against the employer.

Representing Non-Unionized Employees

LMRA prohibits employers from firing their employees without following the due process. The employer should give employees the right to defend themselves prior to firing them. In addition, an employer should offer certain benefits after termination. Therefore, it was wrong for the human resource manager to fire Green and reinstate Swallows.

It is the duty of a labor union to ensure that it represents all employees fairly. This ensures that the labor unions do not take sides in airing grievances of employees of the same company. The duty of fair representation is applicable to all employees who fall under the NLRA. This is regardless of whether the employees are members of unions or not.

Therefore, the labor union was discriminatory. Billie Green and Mary Swallows were involved in a fight in the company’s parking lot. Both launched their grievances with the company’s labor union.

However, Green was not a member of the labor. On the other hand, Swallows was a union member. The labor union helped in the reinstatement of Swallows. However, the union did not represent Green’s grievances to the company. Therefore, the labor union did not have fair representation.

It is the duty of the labor union of the company to represent Green. This is despite the fact that he was not a union member. The union should represent Green since the fight involved another unionized employee of the company. Representing Green would have ensured fair representation.

Arrest and Termination

Companies should ensure that they involve the labor unions when formulating laws that affect employees. This helps in reducing the resistance of the unions towards the laws. Therefore, failure to involve the labor unions in the formation of laws is one of the major factors that make the labor unions oppose the termination of Rokus by UPC due to possession of drugs.

Police usually arrest people due to suspicion. However, not all arrests lead to a conviction. Various technical or legal factors may lead to the dropping of charges by the police. Therefore, the company should give more weight to conviction instead of arrest.

The arbitrator should not consider any statements that the company made after the discharge. This is because the company may look for information that would justify the discharge. This would protect the company in case the employee sues them.

The length of service determines the decision that arbitrators may make. This is because the length of service may be an indication of the loyalty of the individual to the company. Arbitrators should consider the duration of service since it is hard for employees to change their behavior abruptly.

An arrest means that the police suspect an individual has engaged in unlawful activity. On the other hand, a conviction means that the police feel that they have evidence that would enable them to prove the wrongful conduct of an individual. Investigations may prove that the individual is innocent.

The regulations of UPC state that the company may discharge an employee who has an active Decision Making Leave (DML), if the employee engages in serious violations of the company’s policy. Police arrested Rokus due to suspicion drug related activities. However, UPC acted wrongly since Rokus may have been innocent.

The arbitrator should rule that the company acted wrongly in dismissing Rokus. Police arrested Rokus due to drug related charges. However, they were unable to prove their case in court. This necessitated them to drop the charges.

Discharge for Off-Duty Conduct

The U.S. Postal Service may discharge an employee who engages in unethical conduct. In addition, the company may discharge an employee who engages in activities that are prejudicial to the company.

‘Nexus’ refers to the relationship between two activities. It is vital for the Postal Service to show the relationship between an employee’s activity and the company before discharging the employee.

A company should ensure that it treats its employees equally. However, one should not use this as an excuse to request reinstatement of an employee if the company reinstated another employee who had a similar mistake. Therefore, equal treatment may be inconsequential in a case.

According to the company, Lee should not receive unemployment compensation. This is because he had attempted to defraud the organization that had hired him. Therefore, the company cannot trust someone who is essentially a thief.

Since Lee was involved in a crime, job performance prior to the crime is of no consequence. He attempted to defraud financial institutions. This may have reduced the confidence that members of the public have on the Postal Service.

The arbitrator should dismiss the union’s submissions. This is because Lee pleaded guilty to involvement in fraudulent activities. Lee engaged in the fraudulent activity for many years. Therefore, he was fully aware of the effects of the engaging in the crime.

Arbitrators usually use the decision of previous arbitrators in making a ruling. They usually consider the factors that were prevalent in the previous arbitrations. However, there are significant differences between the current arbitration and previous arbitrations. Therefore, the arbitrators should not use previous arbitrations in making their ruling.

From the case, it is clear that Lee engaged in criminal activity willingly. In addition, he pleaded guilty to the charges of engaging in criminal activity. Therefore, the arbitrators should not rule in his favor. They should uphold the Postal Service’s decision to discharge him.

Click Here To Order Now!