Arbitration cases

The labor case of Law Enforcement Labor Services Vs city of Hastings

The labor dispute between Law Enforcement Labor Services and the city of Hastings demonstrates that the complaints and problems were only partially resolved. The case's reports and conclusions cover the standard of proof, witness credibility, rules of conduct, and importance of the evidence. Accidentally, the cop attempted to break up a quarrel in a public area, which led to the event. In support of the investigation, the case reports were given by all parties. The defendant stated that his intentions were to stop a crime that he had committed and had fled the scene of the arrest.

The law enforcement members had to question both parties where the officer was requested to go on probation for further investigations. The findings from the investigations were that the officer acted in anger when trying to control the defendant. The case was for the aim of protecting the pubic against the harsh actions of the officers. After a three day hearing, the record made is that there should be enough scrutiny of all facts before close of the case. The officer was thus charged with dishonesty and unintentional act where he ran over a pedestrian. The factors that contributed to the arbitrator charging the officer with failure to follow the law is that a criminal should be taken on action after proof that they are guilty. Another factor is that the officer may have assumed the law and wanted to punish the victim by himself. The officer was also charged since at the time of trying to catch up with the victim, he should have informed other officers for backup.

With the case being held ten years ago, the arguments were based on the welfare and positive treatment of the public. In current hearings and cases, the defendant and the petitioner have a right to be heard when presenting their briefs. Both parties presented their reports to the arbitrators who took charge of the case to come up with a conclusive decision. Thus, the officer was not in the position to defend his case especially if the pubic members and the witnesses supported the plaintiff. The judges thus listened to the views presented from the plaintiff’s side.

SEIU Local 113 and Aspen Medical Group

SEIU Local 113 and Aspen Medical Group is an investigation done between the employer and the employee. The hearing was held in 2003 which is fourteen years ago where the arbitrator served in defense of both parties. In the same type of case, both parties were given time to present their cases and reports as an act of proof. The employer defended their case against the union members. The case was aimed at solving different issues such as past practices, jurisdiction of the arbitrator, and estoppels.

The union supported their decisions against the employer. It was thus appropriate to conclude that the matter was not arbitrable. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) ensured that the rights of the union will be protected as much as there was no enough evidence of the case. The union had to remain protected and guaranteed of job security. Also, both parties had not convinced the arbitrators that the evidence was enough to make the judgment.

Factors that led to the actions and decisions of the arbitrators is that there was no enough evidence provided by the union members. Also, it was necessary to understand both parties’ reports and briefs before making the final judgment. The employer had the right to terminate a job contract in cases where the employee does not act. Thus, the employee should have followed the job contract requirements before taking the decision to defend their job termination process.

The type of case was open and ensured that all the terms and policies presented have been analyzed keenly.

Comparing both cases, the current investigations seem bias than the old day’s cases. The current cases may consider one party and especially the plaintiff since they are the victims. During the old cases presented the arbitrators ensured that they received briefs and reports from the different parties. In cases where the parties did not respond to the reports especially delays during the submission of the briefs, the case was postponed for further investigations. The arbitrators may also consider common factors when coming up with a judgment. The common consideration made is the value of the witnesses since they contribute in providing the evidence. the arbitrator also considers the value of proof and evidence when making ruling. The proof acts as support of the case and judgment since they will be in a position to explain the reason for ruling for or against the parties.

References

SEIU Local 113 and Aspen Medical Group (2004) Grievance of SEIU Local 113

(Bush Discipline)

The labor case of Law Enforcement Labor Services Vs city of Hastings (2007) Grievance of LELS, Inc., Local 249