Decision – HRM Now! by Top Hat

Disputes often arise from good intentions gone wrong.

In a recent case, the Prairie North Health Region (PNHR) tried to amend its practice for employees wearing name tags. The change was to have the full name (first and last), job title, and picture of the employee on an identity badge, rather than just the employee’s first name. As noted in the article, the purpose of implementing this change came as a result of the employer wanting to promote a patient first philosophy and to equalize the balance of power between patient and health care provider.

Click Here to Read the Article.

The union representing the workers, CUPE Local 5111, disagreed and filed a grievance in order to stop this change in practice. The grievance, as noted in the article was based on several grounds, with the allegation of violation of employee privacy as the primary concern. The matter was not resolved internally. As a result, the dispute went to arbitration for a final resolution imposed by a three-party panel of arbitrators.

The arbitrators’ decision fell on the side of the union. The employer had to rescind the new policy and had to implement new cards showing only employee first names, job titles along with a photo.

Click Here to Read the Case.

As you will note, this case is extensive. It shows the amount of critical detail, witnesses, testimony, legislative impact, evidence of past practice and presentation of other precedent setting cases required in order for this matter to be resolved through a board of arbitration. It was definitely a costly exercise for everyone involved.

Clearly, our names and our right to protect our own personal privacy has value.

One wonders, however, how much the value of good intentions truly cost all of the parties in this case.

Discussion Questions:

Who would benefit from employees wearing name tags with first and last name?
Why do employees, in this case, have a ‘greater’ right to privacy than patients?
What elements of this case would prevent it from being resolved within the applicable grievance resolution process?
Why, do you think, a case like this would proceed to arbitration?
What lessons would you take from your reading of this case?

Termination is a Risky Business.

There was a great deal of social media coverage surrounding the firing of a Hydro One employee who contributed to the sexist heckling of a news reporter, in the spring of 2015. Many commentaries at the time included speculation as to whether or not the termination of this employee would stand.

Since the employee was represented by a union, the termination was grieved and it went to an arbitration hearing. In this case, the arbitrator made the decision to re-instate the former employee back into employment with Hydro One.

It is interesting to note the slightly different perspectives that each media venue provides; for example, watch the following coverage provided by Global News.

Click here to read the article.

The coverage includes the perspective of a union spokesperson providing their insight as to what the arbitrator took into consideration when making the determination for reinstatement. It seems that the former employee’s genuine remorse and public apologies for his conduct were factors that had some influence on the resolution to this situation. Having said that, we are not given information as to what the employer presented at this hearing, nor are we given information as to all of the facts that the arbitrator had to consider.

In a case such as this, the arbitrator’s decision is final.

What remains to be seen is how this decision will influence other cases in the future regarding the termination of an employee due to their own ‘off-duty’ conduct.

Discussion questions:

Do you think employers in the future will terminate employees for similar off-duty conduct if there is a risk of reinstatement?
Is the risk worth it in order to ‘send a message’ about acceptable social conduct?
Do you agree with the arbitrator’s decision in this situation? Why? Why not?
From a Human Resources perspective, what types of policies need to be defined clearly in the workplace about employee conduct?
Identify two or three different media perspectives through internet links for this case. What are the differences in the messages from each media outlet?

What’s in a Name?