MOCK ARBITRATION
Following is a situation in which you are to conduct a mock arbitration. The class will be divided into teams, five to six students per team. Each team will then be assigned to represent either the union or the company. Your team must decide on the witnesses you want at the hearing. Your opposing team must be given the names and job titles of your witnesses. During class time, two teams will conduct the mock arbitration.
SITUATION
Background General Telephone Company of the Southeast (Georgia), hereinafter referred to as the company, provides local telephone service within certain areas of the state of Georgia. Its employees, as defined by Article I and Appendix A of the Agreement, are represented by the Communication Workers of America, hereinafter referred to as the union. The parties are operating under an agreement that became effective June 27, 2005. The grievant, Cassandra Horne, was hired by the company as a service representative on June 4, 1999. On August 30, 2006, she was promoted to installer-repairer and was responsible for installing and repairing residential and single-line business for customers. The grievant’s record is free of any disciplinary entries, and she is considered by her supervisor, Fred Carter, to be a satisfactory employee. On May 19, 2007, the grievant suffered an on-the-job injury to her knee while attempting to disconnect a trailer from a company van. At some time after the injury, the grievant went on disability for approximately eight weeks. She then returned to work with a statement from the company physician, allowing her to perform her normal work. After approximately three weeks, the grievant was still experiencing pain in her knee and was diagnosed by a different physician as having a tear in the cartilage below her kneecap. She went back on disability and had surgery performed on October 19, 2007, to repair cartilage and ligament damage to her knee. During the grievant’s absence, her disability benefits expired, and she agreed to take a six-month leave of absence beginning November 10, 2007. When the grievant’s leave expired on May 11, 2008, she was terminated from her employment with the company. The company argued that the company physician had stated the grievant could not perform installer–repairer work and that no other jobs were open that the grievant could perform. The union argued that the grievant had been cleared by her personal physician and that she felt she could do the work of installer–repairer. A grievance was filed at Step 1 on May 12, 2008, and was denied by the division personnel manager, Jerry L.Leynes. The grievance was submitted to arbitration and is now properly before the arbitrator for decision and award. The company states that the issue before the arbitrator is as follows: Did the company violate the contract by separating the grievant from her position as an installer–repairer, and if so, what should be the remedy? The union states that the issue before the arbitrator is as follows: Is the discharge of the grievant for just or proper cause; and if not, what should the remedy be?