Allan Ramsay, Case Study Example

Question: Was Allan Ramsey discharged for just cause? If not what should the remedy be?

Introduction

Allan Ramsay, the truck driver with Austen for four and a half years with a perfect record, was discharged by the company after an accident in which his truck suffered damage valuing $4500 while the other truck involving in the accident suffered no damage.

In this case, base on exhibit C tendered as the basis for determining the final decision by the arbiter, Allan Ramsay was not discharged for just reasons, and in addition to cases which should be used as precedent, there are several evidence to substantiate the argument.

Evidence and Arguments

One of the first question that should be asked as the case come up before arbitration , was whether the company Austen had meet all the requirements necessary for ensuring a just cause dismissal.

According to Thompson HR (2012) there are 7 test that a just cause discharge must meet for it to qualify, and these are, (a) notice must be given, (b) an investigation must be conducted, (c) the investigation must be fair, (d) the order to follow must be reasonable, (e) equal treatment must be given (f) appropriate evidence must be submitted as proof,  and (g) the penalty imposed must take into consideration the degree of the proven offense and the employee records with the company.

These criteria will be used to judge the actions of the company at a later stage.

One of the first reason why the case should not have been classified as a major discharge was the fact that the employee Ramsay, had a perfect record with the company for four and a half year, there was not even a reprimand on his file.

According to Thomson HR (2012), any penalty handed to an employee must take into consideration the nature of the offence and the employee record with the company.

Base on the decision of the company to recommend the discharge of Allan Ramsay, it seems his impeccable record with the company was of no significance, and it was all about the cost of the damage incurred during the traffic accident.

However, the damage sustained by the company vehicle was valued at $4500 which was 13% of the value of the vehicle, and to compound the issue, the other vehicle sustained no damage that warrants repair.

These two issues should have forced investigators to conclude that according to Exhibit C, this offense should have been classified as a minor rather than a major dischargeable offense.

It could be argued that the investigation was also not a fair one in that Ramsay had a perfect record after four and a half years, and there might be other reasons for the discharge. This assumption was with merit, as in previous cases concerning Walter Troop, Beverley Morgan and Signal Delivery Service, no discharge rule was granted although their damage levels had exceeded $4500

Additionally, the company actions seems disingenuous, when they submit the cases of Fox and Cohene to substantiate their recommendations for discharge, when both parties on investigation were discharge for other reasons, had disciplinary records and their respective cost of each damage was less than $4500, which was the cost of Ramsay’s damage as a result of the accident.

Conclusion

After careful examination of Exhibit C from the Motor Transport and labor Relations Inc, and comparing Ramsay’s performance record with other employees, as well as the 7 criteria established as standards for just cause dismissal, the conclusions can be drawn that the employee was not fairly investigated, and should have been given reprimand and allowed to keep his job.

Further, the accident should not have been classified as a major offense for dismissal but a minor one, and with the employee having no previous disciplinary issue and the value of the damage less than 13 % of the vehicle, justify the  call for the arbiter to hand down the ruling for first offense.

Austen also needs a major overall in its public relations, in that it lacked consistency in how its employees’ services are terminated.  The company seems to have different standards for different employees as well as possible hidden agendas that may prove costly in terms of possible class action lawsuits filed by disgruntled employees in the future

The company should have been proud to have the services of Allan Ramsay who openly admitted he was the cause for the accident, an indication of his honesty and integrity, but this was of no consequence as the company recommended his discharge, showing where its priority lies in an era where many other companies regard their human resources as their most precious assets.

Reference

Thompson HR” Checklist for Terminations and Conducting Terminations and Layoffs” (2012) Retrieved from: http://hrforms.thompson.com/samples/HFHRT010_sample.pdf  on 10/25/12