This is case related to labor law and employment law...a case relating to arbitration so what i want is introduction and over view of the issues and also union evidence and arguments ...around 4 pages...

Running Head: DISMISSAL CASE- ARBITRATION
Running Head: DISMISSAL CASE-ARBITRATION
1
PAGE
2
DISMISSAL CASE - ARBITRATION
Dismissal Case- A
itration
Name
Institution
Dismissal Case- A
itration
Introduction
Most Canadian businesses, both domestic and foreign-owned, are controlled and regulated by business and labour laws of respective individual te
itories or provinces in which employees reside. However, individuals employed in Federal undertakings such as airlines and banks are governed and regulated by the Canada Labour Code. In a
itration cases encountered in the country where employment disputes are involved, a union is employed in determining the fate of the issue at hand. In section 82 of the Canadian legislation, a union or rather an a
itration board is entitled with the necessary authority to provide a conclusive and final binding award in accordance with a dispute arising in business or labour relations (Christine, 2010, p. 1).
This discourse examines an a
itration case involving Mrs. Elisabeth Meyers, a griever, and the company in which she was employed. In its analysis, the discourse presents arguments in two positions, which include the union’s perspective, and the management’s perspective. In addition, cases on Lexus Nexus are given to support the arguments given. A binding award, according to own perception, is given as a means to provide an appropriate resolution to the case.
Assuming the Role of the Union
A Proper Grievance under the Collective Argument
From a union’s perspective, it is indeed apparent to assert that the case ruling is not co
ect. Basing on the fact that Mrs. Elisabeth is deprived of her employment status, it becomes the concern of a union in question to intervene and have the rights of the griever listened to. Perhaps, this is based on the notion that Mrs. Elisabeth seems confused in her conviction whereby she is seen to provide conflicting arguments in her quest for self defence. Besides, on her own Mrs. Elisabeth cannot provide sufficient self arguments in support of the circumstances that forced her to indulge in the theft case (“Labour and Employees Law,” n.d).
The Issue in the Case
The issue in the case, basing on union’s perspective is termination of Mrs. Elisabeth’s employment status. Although the various versions of the griever’s argument, as reviewed by the specific personnel in the company seem contradicting, it is not logical to terminate her employment status without giving consideration to influencing factors that resulted to such contradictions. It is evidently shown from the griever’s argument that the confessions and statements she made in response to her theft cases were under substance influence. Besides, it should be put into consideration that the griever is aged and loosing her job will imply the beginning of her doom. This is evidently shown from the pleas she makes for her be granted a second chance in the company (“Labour and Employees Law,” n.d).
Incidences giving rise to the Grievance
The core incidence giving rise to the grievance is theft. However, there are circumstances that made the griever indulge in the theft case. First, according to the griever, the foods taken were considered of no value, and were to be discarded. Second, the meat loaf, one of the stolen food products, had been reheated for the second time, a factor...