In-Depth Analysis: Parks Cascade Agency Arbitration Case Study

This case study delves into an arbitration decision concerning the termination of Michael Mallory, a seasonal trail crew laborer at the Parks Cascade Agency (PCA), by Superintendent Donny William. The grievor, Mallory, contested his termination, leading to an arbitration process. The analysis addresses key questions about the arbitrator's decision, the grievor's conduct, and the employer's actions. It evaluates the arbitrator's impartiality, the appropriateness of the punishment, and the potential for an estoppel argument by the union. The study also examines relevant sections of Canadian Labour Arbitration and assesses the honesty of the grievor's testimony. Ultimately, the analysis supports the arbitrator's decision, concluding that both parties were at fault but the termination was justified due to the grievor's misconduct and the firm should take preventive measures in the future to avoid such kind of cases. Desklib provides access to similar case studies and solved assignments for students.

Arbitration Case 0
Title: Arbitration Case
Assignment Name:
Student Name:
Course Name and Number:
Professor:
Date:

Arbitration Case 1
Executive Summary
In this report, a case has been discussed involving Michael Mallory, an indeterminate seasonal
trail crew labourer at the Parks Cascade Agency (PCA) on his termination of employment by
Donny William, Superintendent, Keephills Nature Park, and Reserve. The grievor has contested
the termination. Therefore, we will be discussing what went wrong, who is guilty and clear out
doubts of the viewers. Alongside we will try to answer some questions involving the case. Most
importantly, whether the judgment of the arbitrator is morally correct or not. There are some
controversial and contradicting statements made by both the parties, we will review them all
moving further.

Arbitration Case 2
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Answer 1..........................................................................................................................................2
Answer 2..........................................................................................................................................3
Answer 3..........................................................................................................................................3
Answer 4..........................................................................................................................................4
Answer 5..........................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion and Recommendation...................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................5

Arbitration Case 3
Introduction
Here, in this report, an arbitration decision has been presented containing all the facts and
arguments presented by both sides as well as the final decision by the arbitrator. This case
involves Michael Mallory, whose employment has been terminated at the Parks Cascade Agency
due to his "unruly behavior and unprofessional attitude" at the workplace as stated by the
employer. But, the grievor has challenged the decision and is contesting his employment
termination against the agency. Therefore, we will be answering some questions related to the
case as well as reviewing the statements of the grievor, employer, and the arbitrator.
Answer 1
Yes, personally I am satisfied with the arbitrator's decision because his predicament
seems unbiased and true to the facts. He points out the mistakes from both sides as he mentions
the employer's actions as "reprehensible and amateurish" as they delayed the proceedings and
terminated the contract without proper notice. However, the grievor, as stated did not meet the
basic requirements for the position, i.e. a valid Class 5 driver's license. Hence, he is unfit to join
the firm. Hence, the grievance of Mr. Michael Mallory is dismissed.
No, it is mentioned in the excerpts that the employee was very unprofessional and was
not punctual at all. His drinking habits have also been stated which did not go in his favor in the
case. So, I feel he is responsible for the judgment he got.
Again, I do not feel a lesser punishment such as a suspension would have worked because
the employee had completely lost control of himself and was a threat to the working environment
of the enterprise. He has been accused of physical assault a few times in the statements given by

Arbitration Case 4
employers, which has been confessed by the griever. Hence, he does not deserve any lesser
punishment than the termination of the contract.
Answer 2
In paragraph 76, it is also mentioned that "Mr. B" was forthright and approached
management the day after his arrest and showed remorse for his actions whereas the grievor i.e.
Mr. Michael did not approach his supervisor or anyone from senior management about the
suspension of his license (Brown, Beatty & Deacon, 2006). Also, precedent for unjust
accommodation was truly denied by the arbitrator because "Mr. B" and our grievor "Mr.
Michael" reported to different supervisors.
So, it would have been a bad decision if the union had raised an estoppel argument as the
grievor was at fault for not responding immediately to the seniors and instead he was showing
his worsening condition at work i.e. arriving late and growing cases of drinking and brawling
(Strauss, 2017).
Answer 3
According to 7:2000 and 7:2300 of Canadian Labour Arbitration, it is said that:
" Arbitrators now generally assume that unless the agreement provides otherwise or there is
some established practice to the contrary and apart from certain preliminary issues with respect
to the validity of the agreement, the fact of employment and the act of discipline, the employer
carries the ultimate burden of proving that it had just cause to discharge the grievor. "
These verses are certainly in favor of the grievor. As they clearly state that, the employee
cannot be removed from the organization before proving the actions in the court. Moreover, that

Arbitration Case 5
is why the arbitrator in his verdict has said that the employers were at fault too (Freyens & Gong,
2017). However, that no way means that the grievor does not deserve the punishment.
Answer 4
The arbitrator is justified in believing that the grievor is not being fully honest in his
testimony as is mentioned in Section 68:
"That he does not know his license was suspended for three years, ignorance of the law is no
excuse."
Now that clearly explains the situation of the grievor who is probably mentally unfit or is
just dishonestly trying to support his claim (Stephenson, Rothlisberger & Westover, 2018).
Another excerpt states:
"In any case even if the grievor's employment was terminated by the supervisor, the grievor
would've filed a grievance and in fact, that is what grievor did on receipt of Mr. Weinder's letter
of termination."
This also depicts the careless and unprofessional attitude of the grievor that he did not
think of the right thing to do when he had the chance (Calvao, 2016).
Answer 5
I completely agree with the representative's conclusion. It is just unacceptable to assault
anyone, it does not matter whether he is a senior or a junior or the incident happened in the
workplace or not. That behavior is simply toxic and that shows how unfit the grievor is for any
sort of employment (Hart, 2012). A sane and normally functioning human does not do that kind
of stuff. Hence, those assaults at Mr. Cook are justified enough for the grievor's punishment.

Arbitration Case 6
Conclusion and Recommendation
At the end of the report, we can conclude by saying that both the sides were at fault and
no one can be blamed solely for whatever transpired. But, at the end of the day, the firm's
decision to terminate the employment of Mr. Michael has been just. And the same was said by
the arbitrator. We can conclude that the grievor is in probably the worst of his senses and unfit
for any kind of employment. Also, the firm should take preventive measures in the future to
avoid such kind of cases. They acted instinctively by terminating the contract at the instant and
that is why a mess was made of what could have been a simple agreement.

Arbitration Case 7
References
Brown, D., Beatty, D., & Deacon, C. (2006). Canadian labour arbitration. Aurora, Ont.: Canada
Law Book.
Calvao, T. (2016). Codes of Conduct: Effectiveness and Legitimacy. Organizational Cultures:
An International Journal, 16(1), 9-22.
Freyens, B., & Gong, X. (2017). Judicial decision making under changing legal standards: The
case of dismissal arbitration. Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization, 133, 108-126.
Hart, S. (2012). Labour Arbitration of Co-Worker Sexual Harassment Cases in
Canada. Canadian Journal Of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences
De L'administration, 29(3), 268-279.
Stephenson, R., Rothlisberger, C., & Westover, J. (2018). Extracurricular Engagement and
Person-Organization Fit through Internalizing Organizational Mission Statements and
Values. Organizational Cultures: An International Journal, 17(4), 21-37.
Strauss, K. (2017). Migration and the Canadian Labour Market. Labour / Le Travail, 79(1), 229-
236.