YOU BE THE ARBITRATOR
1. The following incident actually happened at AT&T. Read and think about it.
Mary is a senior operations clerk. She works in a test room for an
operations manager and coordinates administrative duties for the office.
Her job requires working with others in the office. She is responsible for
processing vouchers and employee phone bills, answering the phone,
making out time reports, maintaining the vacation schedule, forwarding
payroll inquiries, and performing other duties related to office
administration.
Although Mary is considered an efficient worker, she has developed
a reputation for being rude and uncooperative. Employees have complained
that she is impossible to work with. On several occasions when her fellow
employees have asked for information she has scolded them for asking
such "dumb questions."
Her appraisals in the past have been satisfactory in every category
except "sense of cooperation." Her supervisor characterizes her as a good,
productive worker on jobs that do not require contact with others.
However, in her most recent appraisal she receives a "limited" in the
category of "sense of cooperation." Her supervisor informs her that
improvement is expected in this area or she could face discipline. Mary
replies that if employees would stop asking so many stupid questions she
wouldn't be so provoked. Her supervisor responds that answering inquiries
is part of the job.
A few days later a customer calls to complain about service. At the time,
Mary was busy typing a report and she told the customer everyone in the
office was busy, so call back later. When the customer later tracks down
the operations manager, the customer complains about the rudeness of the
clerk. Her supervisor asks Mary about the incident and she acknowledges
the conversation but says she couldn't find anybody to talk to the customer.
After making other inquiries, the supervisor finds that Mary made no effort
to ask anyone in the office about assisting the customer. Consequently,
the supervisor suspends Mary for three days for unsatisfactory job
performance.
In the following months a series of incidents were documented.
Employees continued to complain that Mary was slow to respond to their
questions. In one incident, a supplier was not paid promptly because
Mary didn't like the supplier's agent. Mary was subsequently given two
more suspensions and finally warned that unless her cooperation improved
to a satisfactory level, she would be terminated. A few weeks later her
supervisor asked her to update a time report. Mary said she was tired of
making changes and if the supervisor wanted the change to make it
himself.
Mary was fired for poor work performance demonstrated by her
repeated lack of cooperation with others. Despite satisfactory performance
in all other areas, Mary's continued lack of cooperation as unacceptable.
The union contended in a grievance that Mary worked hard and knew
her job and the company could not dismiss an employee for lack of
cooperation when all other work performance categories were satisfactory.
2. This case went to an arbitrator who had to decide if Mary's dismissal
was with "just cause." If you were the arbitrator in this case,
how would you decide?
3. Share your decision with a nearby classmate. Discuss the reasons
for each of your decisions. Await further class discussion.
Refer to Chapter18-MANAGING LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
for addition information.