I am management and here is the case study.

Please help provide text citations and references to use, I need a lot of sources and some can be from cases.

The Case Study THE CASE OF ROBYN ANDREWS (VERSION 3)3 THE FACTS The facts of the case are not in dispute. Robyn Andrews was a registered nurse employed in the cancer unit of University Hospital. Andrews is now 35 years old and was hired by University Hospital on June 1, 2009. The hospital has a three-point performance rating system: (1) does not meet expectations; (2) meets expectations; and (3) exceeds expectations. Each year but 2018 Andrews received a performance rating of"meets expectations." In 2018, she received a rating of "meets expectations." In her role as cancer nurse, Andrews was responsible for monitoring patient care, administering cancer drugs (chemotherapy, opioids), monitoring patient regimes, and counselling patients and their families concerning cancer care options. Accordingly, nurses on this unit were required to maintain certification as "cancer specialists." Andrews received this certification in 2002 and had maintained it ever since. Andrews was verbally counselled and received two written warnings for absenteeism on February 14, 2018,July 25, 2018, and October 4, 2018, respectively. She was terminated on November 7, 2018, following a three-day leave of absence without permission. A union representative was present for the last warning; Andrews declined union representation for the first two warnings. At no point was Andrews reminded about the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in place at the hospital. On November 1, 2018, management found oxycodone in her locker. Only Andrews had the combination needed to open that locker. The amount of oxycodone found was the exact amount that Andrews had signed as being "contaminated and destroyed" on October 31, 2018. The letter of discharge states that she was terminated for failing to call in sick, excessive absenteeism (14 percent as against a hospital average of 7 percent), and theft of medication from the hospital. Subsequent to the discharge, Andrews sought treatment for a drug and alcohol addiction. She has been in and out of counselling since December 2018. Between the initial treatment ofDecember 2018 and the time of the arbitration hearing CTuly 15, 2019), she had three major relapses in which she stopped attending her counselling sessions (dates January 3, 2019, February 14, 2019, and March 17, 2019). She has been drug- and alcohol-free since April 11, 2019. Andrews's addiction counsellor, Dr. Asan, believes that she has a 75 percent chance of remaining chemical-free over the next few years. In Dr. Asan's opinion, it was the unexpected death of Andrews's eight-year-old daughter, who in March 2017 died in the ER of the hospital where she worked, that caused the subsequent addiction. Specifically, Andrews lost control of her car when it hit black ice. An accident followed where she was injured and her daughter subsequently died. Andrews was prescribed oxycodone as a pain killer for her accident-related injuries. Now that her patient has recovered from this tragic event shock, Dr. Asan believes that Andrews can maintain an acceptable attendance and performance record as a cancer nurse in the future. APPENDIX C Arbitration: The Case of Robyn Andrews NEL Copyright 202 1 Nelson Education Ltd. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Nelson Education reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictio ns require it. In terms of other employees, Ms. Gomez (her manager) states that only one other cancer nurse, out of a staff of 25, had an absenteeism rate greater than 10 percent (13 percent). That nurse was given a written warning. Since that warning, her attendance has been meets expectations. Hence, further discipline was not necessary for that nurse. KEY DATES June 1, 2009: Andrews hired February 14, 2018: Verbal counselling July 25, 2018: Written warning October 4, 2018: Second written warning November 1, 2018: Oxycodone found in Andrews's locker November 7, 2018: Termination December 2018: Andrews' initial treatment July 15, 2019: Arbitration RELEVANT COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT CLAUSE ARTICLE 15-CORRECTIVE ACTION AND DISCIPLINE 15.1. Employees can be disciplined only for just cause. Such discipline must be reasonable and commensurate with the seriousness of the violation. 15.2. Both the union and the hospital believe in the concept of progressive discipline. Accordingly, they agree that a verbal counselling should take place prior to any disciplinary action. Should an employee's conduct or performance not improve after this counselling, the normal progression of discipline will be as follows: Step 1: Written warning Step 2: Second written warning Step 3: Suspension without pay Step 4: Termination 15.3. Notwithstanding clause 15.2, it is understood that certain offences are sufficiently serious to warrant immediate discharge and/ or a faster progression through the process outlined in 15.2. 15.4. Employees have the right to have a union representative present during any of the steps outlined in clause 15.2.

The paper

Introduction

Robyn Andrews' situation is a crucial point where employment rules and how the collective agreement is understood meet. She, as a nurse at University Hospital, faced being fired because of proven rule-breakingmissing work, having unauthorized medicine, and theft. This sparked a big decision process. Representing the hospital, the duty was to make sure the collective agreement was respected while following the right steps for fair discipline.

Her once good work record changed drastically in 2018 because of her frequent absences, which led to her termination. Article 15 in the agreement addresses about how discipline should work, focusing on the idea of "just cause" as the main thing guiding fair actions with employees.

Role of Management

Management has a tough job handling both the collective agreement's rules and making sure they're fair when firing someone. This decision needs careful thinking about Andrews' actions, how the hospital dealt with discipline, and considering any factors that might make things less severe as per the contract. This starts a big look into Andrews' case, focusing on important parts of the decision-making process and what management needs to do to make sure they're fair when taking disciplinary actions.

Compliance with Collective Agreement

Seriousness of Offenses

Clause 15.3 in the agreement outlines specific behaviors that are considered exceptionally serious and could result in immediate termination or quicker disciplinary action. Robyn Andrews' actions align closely with the severity outlined in this clause. Her consistent pattern of absenteeism significantly exceeded the hospital's norms, disrupting the continuity of patient care and potentially compromising their well-being. As a nurse responsible for crucial patient treatment and monitoring, her repeated absence could directly impact the quality and consistency of care provided. Moreover, the grave accusation of unauthorized medication possession escalates the seriousness of the situation. Taking medicine not prescribed for her challenges the fundamental trust and ethics in a healthcare setting, posing a direct risk to patient safety. These combined actions breached crucial standards of conduct expected in a hospital, directly impacting patient well-beinga key concern that the hospital prioritizes above all else. Therefore, the hospital's decision for immediate termination stems from the gravity of Andrews' actions, which posed significant threats to patient care and safety, in direct violation of the standards upheld by the collective agreement.

Adherence to Procedure and Support

Union Representation

Employees can seek a union representative for assistance if something is amiss at work. In Robyn Andrews' situation, the hospital made sure she could have someone from the union when things got tough. When Robyn initially got into problems, though, she refused to accept assistance from the union. That was her decision, but it might have made things harder for her because she didn't have someone from the union supporting her and speaking up for her.

EAP Support and Notification

The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) serves as a resource intended to provide support and assistance to employees facing personal or professional challenges that may affect their performance or conduct. While the hospital maintains an EAP, the collective agreement does not expressly mandate the hospital's obligation to actively remind employees, such as Andrews, about this program. The hospital's main job is patient care and safety, not keeping track of whether employees are using available help. So, even though reminders about the EAP could be helpful, not giving them doesn't break any contract with the hospital.

Looking at Andrews' access to union support and what the hospital has to do about the EAP, it's clear the hospital followed the rules about union help. But, while the EAP is useful, the agreement doesn't make the hospital responsible for telling employees about it. This shows the hospital's focus is on taking care of patients and running things smoothly, rather than keeping tabs on individual employees' welfare.

Consideration Of Mitigating Factors

Rehabilitation and Medical Context

The post-termination revelation of Robyn Andrews' struggle with addiction following a tragic incident presents a compelling mitigating factor warranting thorough consideration. Her commitment to rehabilitation and counseling exhibits she's actively working towards recovery. The loss of her daughter, along with her injuries and being prescribed oxycodone, highlights the emotional and physical pain she went through. Understanding these hardships helps us see how they might have affected her actions and choices at work.

Prediction of Future Performance

Dr. Asan's assessment of Andrews' future work performance after her rehabilitation is important to consider. The counselor believes Andrews has a good chance of staying sober and meeting work expectations. Dr. Asan links Andrews' addiction to the loss of her daughter and suggests that with time and proper recovery, Andrews can be expected to attend work regularly and perform well as a cancer nurse.

Precedent and Consistency

Comparative Case of Gomez

The comparative analysis of another nurse, Gomez, within the hospital's staff, underscores the significance of consistency in disciplinary actions. The case of Gomez, who faced a similar situation of high absenteeism, serves as a precedent highlighting the hospital's approach to disciplinary measures. She received a written warning and then improved her attendance. The fact that the hospital didn't take further action after the warning shows they stick to a consistent approach. This consistency in how they handle discipline shows they're committed to fairness and trying to correct behavior, which lines up with what's in the agreement.

Considering factors like Andrews' rehabilitation, Dr. Asan's assessment, and the case of Gomez, it's clear that it's crucial to look at everything before deciding about Andrews' termination. These factors show there are things that might make the situation less severe, like her efforts to recover, the chance for rehabilitation, and how the hospital has handled similar cases in the past. This challenges just seeing the termination as purely punishment.

Conclusion

In the arbitration surrounding Robyn Andrews' termination, the hospital's actions find solid grounding within the collective agreement's provisions. They followed the "just cause" rules closely and stuck to a step-by-step disciplinary process, which supported their choice to terminate Andrews. Her repeated rule-breaking, like missing work a lot and having medication she shouldn't have, were serious violations according to the agreement, justifying the termination. This shows the hospital's commitment to maintaining high standards and making sure the workplace is safe and professional for good patient care.

Also, the hospital's consistent way of dealing with discipline, shown in Gomez's case, highlights their fairness and following the right procedures. Recognizing certain actions as grounds for immediate firing emphasizes how serious Andrews' actions were, making it clear why they decided to let her go. These actions don't just follow the agreement; they also show the hospital's dedication to being fair and keeping patients safe, which helps keep their workforce strong and maintains excellent healthcare standards.