| |
You are here: Experts > Business > Corporate Law > Arbitration/Mediation > Arbitration hearing for wrongful termination
Arbitration/Mediation - Arbitration hearing for wrongful termination
Expert: Timmy Chou - 8/22/2008
Question
I have an arbitration hearing for wrongful termination and need to know my options. It is set for 9-8-08 (just 2 months after the union board decided to go to arbitration). The union feels there was unfair treatment and have witnesses to that effect. My question is I have just started a new position and feel that I do not want to return to this institution due to the treatment (even though I worked there since 1994 and have been in the heath field for 28 yrs. with an unblemished history and with out any management problems). I am being treated with dignity and respect now. Although I feel they should be held accountable, I also want my name cleared and the termination off my record and a monetary settlement. If I go to arbitration and the arbitrator rules they must return my job to me, can I just ask for the things I mentioned and not return to the position? Or should I try to settle now and how does that work? I will be willing to share additional info if needed as the evidence shows I was singled out and basically railroaded/blackballed. Also can you advice me on how much I can reasonably expect? I was taken off work on 5-22-08 and terminated 6-4-08. My new employment started 8-19-08. Thank you very much for any advice.
Answer
Thank you for your question!
Sorry for the delay in responding as I have not had access to the web since last weekend.
As I always mention to questioners, mediators act as neutral third parties to disputes and never "get involved" in judging the merits of conflict, but merely use special techniques to help the parties decide how to negotiate their own settlement.
I am neither a lawyer nor an arbiter and cannot mediate this with you alone but I can respond to your question from my business consulting experience.
Note that this issue may have legal factors and you may wish to consult a labor attorney.
It may be useful for you to consider that right and wrong are not always the most useful places to begin in dealing with these sorts of problems. organizations simply work in their own interests and often people and principle are sacrificed in the interests of expediency. Its not personal. Right or wrong, there is a cost to exacting justice and the costs can be quite high. Remember that your person-hood and your work are not even remotely related.
I am guessing that there are some well-used procedures in your case either as part of the HR department or through the Union (perhaps part of the collective bargaining agreement). You should be able to determine by talking with your Union rep about what is usual and customary and what is out of bounds. I have seen a range of "typical" presentations depending on the industry and upon Union requirements.
You might be able to ask for an alternative settlement, but it may be beyond the scope of what the arbiter has the power to award (e.g. he may only have the option of give back the job or not).
Every presentation is different and so I am not much help here. I would urge you to seek out a trustworthy Union rep to describe the lay of the land so that you can better assess your options. In any case, It will not be likely that the company will want to choose the settlement option if they think they can just restore your job and get off without further harm. They should not have concern about your performance with your track record. Therefore, your leverage to demand an alternative settlement may be limited. It wouldn't hurt to get some legal counsel here as well -- again your Union should be making these resources available to you for little or no charge.
Be sure to review any company or Union policies and procedures concerning this process and note where you have leverage and make sure the procedure is followed exactly.
These are some ideas. Feel free to follow up with additional questions.
For your information, the pros and cons of the types of dispute resolution methods follows.
GOOD LUCK!
Arbitration, Mediation, and Litigation
Arbitration: the referral of a dispute to one or more impartial persons for final and binding determination outside of the judicial system
Benefits of Arbitration:
Confidential, no public record
Limited exchange of documentation, information
Quick, don't have to wait for a court date
Arbitrators have expertise in the subject matter and are trained in conflict resolution
Cheaper than litigation
Preserves business relationships
Negatives of Arbitration
It's a compromise, no 0 winner
Complex arbitration can be costly
If not satisfied, may litigate the arbitration procedure
Poor results with an unskilled arbitrator
Both parties must agree to cooperate in the process
Mediation: the process by which parties submit their dispute to a neutral third party (the mediator) who works with the parties to reach a settlement of their dispute.
Benefits of Mediation:
Neutral mediator can objectively suggest alternatives not considered
before
Parties are directly engaged in negotiating the settlement
Can be quicker than litigation
Less costly than litigation
Preserves business relationships
85 of American Arbitration Association cases mediated find successful solutions
Negatives of Mediation
may not reach a binding decision
unskilled mediator
Litigation: using the judicial system to resolve disputes
Benefits of litigation:
a clear winner and loser
uses a prescribed set of procedures
more predictable outcomes
is final
Negatives of Litigation:
waiting for court dates can do more harm
usually more expensive than mediation and arbitration
part of the public record
Add to this Answer
Ask a Question
|
|
