Labor Relations Anti-Nepotism Free Essay Example, 750 words

ï » ¿Nepotism is a complex issue. Organizations create anti-nepotism policies to promote equity in the workplace. This case study analyzes the issue of anti-nepotism policy in a Company. The issue of nepotism is discussed. The union and management’s position on the issue is evaluated. The paper relates these positions to the contractual language. Ideas about remedy are provided. Keywords: anti-nepotism, management, union, remedy. Nepotism is a popular topic of research. Organizations want to promote equity in the workplace. This is why they develop and implement anti-nepotism policies. Nepotism can be defined as â€Å"the bestowal of patronage by reason of relationship regardless of merit† (Jones et al, 2008, p. 18). In simple words, nepotism means hiring and promoting friends, relatives, or family members, when these practices lead to unfairness and discrimination against other job applicants and workers. The issue with Keith W. Walton is clear: he was fired once the company was reported that his uncle was working for the same company. Walton was fired for violating the company’s anti-nepotism policy. The main issue is whether at all Walton violated the policy of nepotism in the workplace and whether the grievant has the right to work in the company. The union is confident that the Company’s policy of anti-nepotism is misbalanced and ill defined. We will write a custom essay sample on Labor Relations: Anti-Nepotism or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now Although the company has the right to create such policies, Company employees have little knowledge of nepotism, its meaning, and its potential effects on the organization. The Union claims that the Company never tried to clarify the meaning of the â€Å"Employee of Relatives† section of the handbook for its employees. Moreover, the grievant might have been unaware of the fact that his Uncle worked for the same company when he applied for a job. Finally, given that nepotism is the same as favoritism, it is not clear how at all the fact of working for the same company with his Uncle benefited the grievant. The Company holds to a different position. First, the Union defends the grievant simply because it wants put a ban on the Company’s anti-nepotism policy – the attempt that failed a few years ago. Second, the Company handbook has an â€Å"Employment of Relatives† section, which forbids hiring applicants that are relative of current employees. Third, the rule of anti-nepotism is long-standing and should be consistently enforced. The Company has the full right to hire and fire employees, in order to control their performance and monitor discipline in the workplace. The company is correct: Article I Management in the Company gives the company the right to hire, lay off, and discipline employees. Moreover, this right is exclusive. The company can determine how many employees it will hire and will always have full control over employees. Also, the Union also has the right to argue the cases, when employees are disciplined or fired in violation of this Agreement. If it is determined that the employee was fired in violation of the Agreement, the Company must award the employee for the time he (she) lost and reinstate this employee in his (her) previous position. The case of the grievant is extremely controversial. What happened to Walton is clearly a violation of his rights. It should be noted, that anti-nepotism policies often lead to employment discrimination (Employee Issues, n.d. ). It is a case of wrongful termination, which needs professional attention. Here, the best remedy will be to file an official letter of agreement to the company, signed by Union representatives and lawyers, and stating the Union’s position on the issue. The letter will be the first step to finding the best agreement between the company and the grievant. If the company ignores the letter, the Union and the grievant will have the right to file a lawsuit against the Company. Writing such a letter may help the company to understand why firing the grievant was against the company agreement with Walton. First, the Company must realize that an anti-nepotism policy is a policy against hiring members of one and the same family (Cortland State University, 2010). Nepotism by itself is about favoritism (Bellow, 2003). However, it is not clear how the fact of being a relative of another worker benefited the grievant. Their relationship did not give the grievant any advantages, nor did it cause any conflicts of interest. No anti-nepotism policy is relevant, if being relatives does not affect employee performance. Second, it is possible that, when hired, the grievant did know his Uncle was working for the same company. It is not clear, whether the grievant Walton was hired before or after his Uncle had become part of the company. Yet, regardless of the details, neither of them benefited of their relative status, because they never met in the workplace and their job interests was completely different. Simultaneously, that the Union did not support the Company’s anti-nepotism policy does not mean that such policy unreasonable. As an arbitrator, I will have to consider both positions and the contractual language of the agreement. I will need to review the concept of nepotism in the Company policies and agreements. I will need to prove that firing grievant Walton was a case of employment discrimination. The Company will need to re-consider its anti-nepotism policy and educate its employees about its meaning. References Bellow, A. (2003). In praise of nepotism. New York: Doubleday. Cortland State University. (2010). Affirmative Action/ Fair employment practices. Cortland State University. Retrieved from http: //www2.cortland. edu/dotAsset/113386.pdf Employee Issues. (n. d.). Nepotism. Employee Issues. Retrieved from http: //employeeissues. com/nepotism. htm Jones, R.G. , Stout, T., Harder, B., Levine, J. & Sanchez, J.I. (2008). Personnel psychology and nepotism: Should we support anti-nepotism policies? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45(3), 17-20.