Employer's Argument

The employer's case was presented through the evidence of one witness, the grievor's manager. The union did not cross-examine the employer's witness and elected not to call on the grievor. The uncontested evidence of the employer is that while the grievor had been on substantially the same job for some seven years and though his performance had not Position: STOREKEEPER Reports to: Manager Material Distribution Qualifications: Secondary School Graduation Diploma or an equivalent combination of education and experience. Previous distribution experience would be an asset. Conditions of Employment: Must be physically able to perform the essential duties of the job. Job Summary: Under the direct supervision of the Manager Material Distribution, performs all duties related to the Materials Distribution function. Major Duties: 1. Maintains a perpetual inventory control. 2. Performs shipping and receiving functions. 3. Operates printing press, copier, and other related equipment, and performs limited maintenance on them. 4. Processes purchase orders and invoices (Kardex pricing) and follows up as required. 5. Distributes all supplies as per authorized requisition forms. 6. Maintains work area. 7. Performs I.V. Solution Top Up on a daily basis. 8. Assists in the physical inventories as required. 9. Performs any other related duties as required. University Hospital v Union Local 355 deteriorated over that period of time, he had been unsatisfactory over his term of employment and was currently unsatisfactory. Further, there was no reason to think that sufficient improvement would be forthcoming to warrant his continued employment. The employer counseled the grievor numerous times over the period of his employment but concrete action was not taken until September 4, of the previous year, when a meeting was held with the grievor, union representatives and management representatives in attendance. This meeting was called by the union. The employer outlined the areas of dissatisfaction, which resulted in inadequate service by the department and in concern by the grievor's fellow employees that the workload was not being properly shared. The efficiency of the department was impaired because the grievor could not be trusted to carry out certain assignments on time and with accuracy. The meeting terminated with a three-point programme in place: 1. the grievor would identify those parts of his job where he felt he would benefit from retraining; 2. the grievor's job performance would be evaluated over a period of 45 days with feedback sessions every two weeks; and 3. a formal evaluation would be conducted at the end of the 45 days. The grievor was given the opportunity to state his retraining needs but did not indicate any requirements. An informal interim performance evaluation was conducted on September 20th and discussed with the grievor. Several areas of concern were expressed by the grievor's manager. Feedback sessions were held with a union representative present. Management expressed continuing dissatisfaction but the grievor appeared to believe that he was doing an effective job. The formal 45-day evaluation was conducted on November 7, and was reviewed with the grievor and a union representative on November 12th. The summary of the evaluation showed continuing concern in the areas of work performance, judgment and initiative. A meeting was held on November 14th including several union representatives, management representatives and the grievor. It was decided to give the grievor another 45 working days to see if he could improve, this time assigning a fellow employee/union representative to act as a working "buddy" for 20 of those days. One reason for this additional trial period and the employment of the "buddy" system was because the union said that there was a personality conflict between the grievor and the manager. Performance problems continued and the evaluation of January 31, 2018, indicated substantial dissatisfaction and it was noted that, while there was no doubt the grievor was trying, the improvement was not significant enough to meet the standards of the department. The employer considered other work for the grievor but did not find a suitable opening anywhere in the hospital. The grievor received his notice of termination March 19, 2018. The company is seeking the grievance to be dismissed.

this is case please provide me a argument that i explain 6 min front of others.