Arbitration Case Analysis: Nurse Suspension at Nittany Medical

This case study analyzes an arbitration case at Nittany Regional Medical Center involving a nurse, Kevin Hyer, who was suspended for refusing to lift an obese patient due to a back injury. The analysis explores the issues of the hospital's right to suspend the nurse given his condition, the supervisor's potential bias due to Kevin's union involvement, and the justification for Kevin's actions. The application section examines employee rights and responsibilities, highlighting the nurse's duty of care and the hospital's awareness of his injury. The arbitrator's award sustains Kevin's decision, citing safety concerns related to his back injury and the supervisor's negligence. The arbitrator found the supervisor's ultimatum unreasonable, influenced by her negative views on unions. The case underscores the importance of employee safety, fair treatment, and the role of arbitration in resolving workplace disputes. The case highlights the violation of hospital policies and the importance of providing proper care to patients and ensuring employee well-being. The arbitrator's decision considered the grievant's (Kevin's) selfless actions and the potential risks to both the nurse and the patient, concluding that the supervisor's actions were unjustified and unreasonable, and the nurse's decision was reasonable.

Running head: ARBITRATION
ARBITRATION
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ARBITRATION
Facts:
In this case, the Nittany Regional Medical Centre suspended a nurse named Kevin Hyer
for a period of five days where the nurse was an employee of the hospital. The nurse had back
injuries and owing to the back injuries, the nurse refused to lift a rather obese patient. The obese
patient was left lying on the gurney and the nurse chose to go home after his supervisor gave him
an ultimatum. Kevin neglected his behavior and refused to take orders from the supervisor
towards a patient who was already in pain.. The supervisor gave an ultimatum to the nurse that
made him choose the option to go home owing to his health condition as well as the patient’s.
Therefore, the action of the nurse made the hospital authorities suspend the nurse for five days
without pay. Kevin who was union steward thought the termination to be unfair went to seek
justice through an arbitration settlement (NurseKevinarbitratordecision.MOV, 2019).
Issues:
 Whether the hospital authorities had the right to suspend the nurse when they were aware
of his back condition.
 Whether the supervisor had been influenced by Kevin’s involvement in the Union and
thus gave him an ultimatum which compelled Kevin to go home.
 Whether Kevin’s reason to go home instead of taking care of a patient was justified and
reasonable.
Application:
There are certain rights and duties that are to be followed by an employer and the
employees in the workplace. Employees have certain rights towards the employers and the
workplace even if the employees are working part time or there is no written contract available to

2ARBITRATION
the employee. It’s the responsibility of the employee to do the work for which they were hired.
The employees need to work diligently without being careless about the work which could
hamper the goodwill of the organization they work for. The employees are also bound to follow
the instructions of the employer and the employees should ensure safety of themselves and to the
people around them (Freedland, et al., 2016). In the above mentioned facts of the case it could be
seen that Kevin who was appointed as a nurse in the hospital had the duty of carrying patients
from gurney to bed and taking due care (2019). The nurse failed to perform the duties that he was
supposed to after the instructions given to him by the supervisor owing to his back injuries. The
nurse had the injury for a long period of time and the hospital was aware of it. The hospital
authorities instead of giving him a warning suspended him for five days without any pay. The
nurse thought it to be unfair tried to seek justice through arbitration.
In the first issue as discussed above the hospital authorities thought that Kevin did not
perform the duties and neglected the behavior towards a patient who was in pain. Kevin did not
take any orders from the supervisors and went home refusing to carry a patient who was slightly
obese owing to the back injuries which would have worsened if Kevin lifted the patient.
According to the hospital authorities Kevin did not perform the duties and thus, neglected the
duties towards the patients which went against the motto of the hospital which was to take care
of its patients. The hospital was aware of Kevin’s back injuries. The hospital provided with
medical facilities to its employees but Kevin never provided with any kind of documentation
regarding the back injury. Therefore, according to the authorities working in the Nittany
Regional Medical Centre Kevin was at fault because Kevin who was the nurse and an employee
in that hospital neglected the duties that were supposed to be performed. Therefore, instead of
terminating Kevin they suspended Kevin for a period of five days.

3ARBITRATION
The second issue that needs to be discussed is the role of them supervisor who gave an
ultimatum to Kevin did not like the fact that Kevin was involved with Unions and she expressed
great displeasure of the involvement of Kevin with the union. Kevin’s work ethic was
questionable as Kevin with the knowledge of the supervisor used to often ask some of his co-
workers to help owing to his back injuries. There was a negligent behavior on the behalf of the
hospital as the hospital authorities as well as Kevin’s supervisor had the knowledge of Kevin’s
healthy condition and even after knowing about the condition gave an ultimatum to Kevin to
carry an obese person that would deteriorate the health of the patient as well as Kevin.
In the third issue as discussed according to Kevin who was the nurse and an employee of
the Nittany Regional Medical Centre was also union steward claimed that the reason he refused
to carry a slightly larger patient was because of the back problems faced by him. This would not
only worsen the health condition of Kevin but would also affect the patient who would have been
carried. It was also stated by Kevin that the hospital authorities were aware of the back problem.
The representative of Kevin said that the patient was obese and carrying the patient would pose a
threat to Kevin’s health. Kevin had suffered from back injuries during an accident which was
caused by skiing which happened nine years prior taking the job of a nurse at the Nittany
Regional Medical Centre. Kevin during cross-examination had provided with records from his
chiropractor, which showed that the injury was not being made up. Kevin found the suspension
to be unfair therefore, Kevin thought of taking it up for arbitration.
In the above-mentioned case there were two different violations which were made by the
grievant which was Kevin. Firstly, the grievant had refused to listen to the instructions given by
the supervisor which was a lawful and direct order given by the supervisor to the employee of
the hospital in order to move a patient who was lying down on the gurney ready to be put back in

4ARBITRATION
a room where proper treatment could be taken of the patient. This refusal went against the policy
of the hospital as the hospital’s main policy is to take care of the patients. The employee instead
of taking care of the patient left the patient lying there and chose to go home. Secondly,
according to the hospital authorities Kevin or the grievant neglected to take care of a patient. The
patient was lying on the gurney after an operative procedure to be carried and taken to a room
with a bed where the proper procedures for treatment would be carried on by the hospital staff.
This neglect by Kevin who was appointed as a nurse was considered to be a violation of the
hospital policy where the hospital’s main focus is to provide attention and care to their patients
with proper treatments and other facilities. Therefore, these were considered to be two violations
which were caused by the grievant, Kevin according to the hospital authorities.
Award:
As the arbitrator of this case, I decide to sustain Kevin’s decision of not being able to
carry a rather large person because of his back injuries. It was a reasonable decision made by
Kevin who was appointed as a nurse in the hospital. There were no reasonable cause for
discipline by the supervisor. The supervisor was negligent and unobservant of Kevin’s condition.
In spite of being aware of Kevin’s back condition the supervisor instructed and ordered Kevin to
lift or carry a rather obese person, which would worsen Kevin’s back condition and it, would
also cause a danger to the patient who was to be carried in this case. The supervisor had a lot of
responsibilities and the main concern of her was to take care of the patient but being a
supervisor, she needs to take care of her employees or the people who are subordinate to her as
well but instead of taking care of her employee she gave Kevin an ultimatum which was
considered to be unreasonable and an not a disciplinary action on her behalf. Therefore, she was
unobservant and unreasonable towards Kevin. The supervisor seemed to have a problem with the

5ARBITRATION
fact that Kevin was involved in Unions and she despised it. Therefore, her decision of giving an
ultimatum to Kevin was influenced by the fact that Kevin was involved in Unions and this was
unjustified. Kevin acted on behalf of the interests of himself as well as the hospital. As he knew
that he had back injuries lifting a rather obese person would only worsen the back condition
more and it would in turn also jeopardize the health of the patient who was lying on a gurney
after some operative procedures waiting to be carried to a bed where the rest of the treatment and
medical facilities would be given in order to take care of the patient. This decision of the
supervisor towards Kevin was unjustified and it was not to discipline an employee. Therefore,
the supervisor had no right to treat her employee in this manner as the employees health and
safety should also be of primary concern. If the employees are not able to take care of a patient
and perform their duties due to health issues then the supervisors should try to help the
employees before trying to discipline them in order to ensure safety of the employees. Kevin’s
decision in this case was considered to be selfless and to the benefit of the hospital. If Kevin
listened to the instructions of the supervisor, lifted the patient who had just come out of some
operative procedure the patient’s condition was not suitable and the patient needed proper duty,
and care the health condition of the patient was also at stake along with Kevin. Therefore,
Kevin’s decision to not follow the instructions of the supervisor were reasonable. As an
arbitrator I decided to sustain Kevin’s decision on the following grounds:
The nurse Kevin’s decision to carry a patient from the gurney to bed with his back
problem was a safety risk to begin with and his decision was justified and reasonable on this
ground.
The hospital being aware of the fact that Kevin had a sore back effectively ordered Kevin
to carry a patient without any help from other employees were unjustified and unreasonable on

6ARBITRATION
the grounds that Kevin had been able to move patients from one place to another with the help of
co-workers in the past and with the knowledge of the supervisor.
From the above incident it was clear based on the facts that the supervisor’s decision was
influenced by the strong opinions she had about unions and Kevin being a part of the union
influenced her decision making which was not based on the actual incidents of the case.
The supervisor has to ensure safety of all of the employees as their well being is of
utmost concern but in the above case the supervisor being aware of the back injury demanded
and ordered Kevin to perform his duties knowing that this could worsen his health and it could
also worsen the health of the patient which was unreasonable.
The supervisor gave an ultimatum to Kevin which was unreasonable and unjustifiable
knowing about the health condition of Kevin in order to discipline him.
Therefore, in conclusion, in this arbitration hearing, one party seeks some kind of
compensation for the damages caused due to some kind of unjustified reasons. Therefore, in
order to receive some kind of remedy from the other party the arbitration proceedings were
carried forward. Disputes arise between people and remedies can be provided by the arbitration
proceedings since it would be quicker than the proceedings of the court and it would not be
expensive. During the settlement one party might be facing difficulties and the other might have
the arbitrator’s favor (Interview on Collective Bargaining Process, 2019). In spite of that the
parties need to be respectful of each other and carry it with dignity the relationships at times do
not turn sour and the parties go on to live their lives peacefully. In this particular case, the Nurse
had faced a harsh treatment by the supervisor along with the hospital authorities The hospital
authorities should compensate for suspending him for five days without pay.

7ARBITRATION
Conclusion:
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be concluded, that the employees have
certain duties and responsibilities towards the employers of an organization and the employers
also have certain responsibilities towards their employees. The rights of the employees should
not be violated and the health and well-being of the employees should be of utmost concern to
the employers. In the above case it could be seen that the hospital had the knowledge of its
employee’s health condition and knowing that it would ruin and worsen the health of the
employee ordered or instructed the employee to carry on the duties and put the health of the
patients at stake. This was considered to be unreasonable and unjustifiable behavior on the part
of hospital authorities. Therefore, it can be concluded that health of an individual is considered to
be a primary concern and it should not be meddled with.

8ARBITRATION
References
(2019). Retrieved 28 August 2019, from
https://library.unt.edu/media/covers/Transcripts/LaborArbitrationCaseStudy.pdf
Freedland, M., Bogg, A., Cabrelli, D., Collins, H., Countouris, N., Davies, A. C. L., ... & Prassl,
J. (Eds.). (2016). The contract of employment. Oxford University Press.
Interview on Collective Bargaining Process. (2019). Retrieved 28 August 2019, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC8kSydOdd4.
NurseKevinarbitratordecision.MOV. (2019). Retrieved 28 August 2019, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xct0tKUU0NQ.