Collective Bargaining In The Film 'Proof Of Matter' By Harry Katz

As noted by Harry Katz in his book, An Introduction to U.S. Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations, one of the important aspects of collective bargaining in the United States stems from the central principle of grievance and arbitration. Not only does the grievance and arbitration process serve a fundamental mechanism in resolving conflicts that arise at the workplace, the process is also a key feature in maintaining effective industrial relations. During the grievance process, employees are entitled to challenge managerial actions that they feel violate their contract rights and unions are given protection for their members from arbitrary discipline, discharge, or denial of benefits. The movie, Proof of Matter, outlined the series

of steps in the grievance procedure between a worker, Lee Daniels, and his employer at Commuter Airlines. As a disciplinary case, the arbitrator has to determine whether or not Daniels breached the terms outlined labor agreement while ensuring fairness and due process for both parties. Since the evidences did not satisfy the Just Cause Requirement and progressive discipline needed for discharge, the arbitrator should rule in favor of Daniels and recommend appropriate remedies for the employer.
While some aspects of the discharge did meet some of the requirements for Just Cause, it did not satisfy the entire list of the 7 conditions needed for dismissal of the employee. For example, the rule against drug usage on company property is heavily related to employee performance because it would impede a worker’s judgment, which is extremely dangerous for an airline company. However, the alleged violation was not thoroughly investigated and did not reveal convincing proof of guilt. Because Rick Avalos (the supervisors) smelled marijuana in the men’s restroom, he assumed it must have been Daniels who was smoking in there. However, he failed to acknowledge the fact that other employees also used the restroom. Furthermore, there is no significant physical evidence (like a pipe or matches) to confirm his claim that the smell was marijuana. Likewise, Avalos’ testimony only offered vague descriptions of Daniels’ condition. For example, he said Daniels was “mellow” and “calm” at around 3:20 PM, but that claim does not offering significant evidence of marijuana usage. Instead, Avalos needed to prove physical traits of marijuana usage like uncoordinated movement or speech impairment. Because Avalos never saw or found Daniels in possession of marijuana, he cannot deduce that Daniels smoked marijuana on company property, especially considering the possibility of a false positive and the fact that the substance could have been left over in his system from the weekend. Even if Avalos could prove that Daniels used drugs, there was not substantial evidence that drug usage impaired his performance on the job. In Susan Boxer’s testimony, she did not offer concrete evidence that she closed the door properly before takeoff. Furthermore, there is a possibility that she is shifting the blame to Daniels in order to escape responsibility for her own carelessness. The investigation also did not satisfy the fair and objective requirement listed for Just Cause. Avalos’ judgment was clearly skewed by his anger and poor perception of Daniels from an incident a year ago. For example, during his confrontation with Daniels after the accident, he was visibly upset and hostile, which prevented him from observing Daniels’ behavior objectively. This is evident in his communication with Boxer in which he immediately suggested drug usage and his lack of attempt at asking Daniels personally for the source of the malfunction. Therefore, it shows Avalos’ personal bias and discrimination towards Daniels. Likewise, Rick Avalos did not document Daniels’ earlier incidents of tardiness and poor work performance, which makes the arbitrator question the seriousness and validity of his testimony. Another important aspect that the employer failed to prove was progressive discipline. The immediate discharge of Daniels was not reasonably related to his clean record as a first time offender. As noted by Barnaby Luke, first time offenders at comparable companies were given more reasonable punishments like attending a drug rehabilitation program. Rather than discharging Daniels for his first time violation of the drug policy, Commuter Airlines should have practiced progressive discipline and referred him to the EAP program. After evaluating the evidence in the case, the arbitrator should rule in favor of Daniels and ask the employer to reinstate him with a more appropriate punishment like EAP counseling or therapy.

2) After analyzing the case and the material presented in class, I have found a new appreciation for the grievance and arbitration process.

Not only is it one of the few ways to protect workplace fairness and due process, it is also an effective way balancing power and resolving workplace conflict. Without the grievance process, employers can make authoritative and discriminatory decisions that harm the livelihood of their workers. Through watching the case, I received a first-hand perspective, which helped me understand the underlying reasons behind the need for a grievance process. For example, Rick Avalos and Commuter Airlines have total control over rules and regulations in the workplace. Even though Avalos did not conduct a fair investigation and expressed bias toward Daniels, he still had the power to discharge and discipline him for a minor offence. Through the grievance procedure, workers like Daniels have a fair opportunity to voice their perspective of the situation, which was not typically offered them in the workplace. However, both sides exhibited signs of hostility towards each other, which clouded the situation. The grievance process and a neutral arbitrator brought clarity and fairness into the investigation. Since the arbitrator is a third party, the union and employer can trust him to act without preexisting assumptions in instituting industrial justice. Therefore, I found that the grievance process also helped to check the power of the employer and served as an outlet for unions to challenge existing authorities and workplace rules. However, I also found the process to be highly complex and subject to the experience, skills, and impartiality of the arbitrator. Furthermore, the process slows and hinders managerial authority and the decision making process because of the various time-consuming checks and balances. When employers are going through the grievance process, they can lose money and surrender potential profit because they have to hire a

lawyer and focus their resources on arbitration. Furthermore, if the employee is reinstate, there will be negative sentiments amongst management, which will result in poor relations with the worker. However, the process is still an effective way to deal with workplace conflict because it relies on a neutral third party, allows employees to voice their concerns, and offers both sides the opportunity to listen to different propositions. In conclusion, after evaluating the case, I believe the grievance process is a necessary and important method in checking the unilateral decision-making power and authority of management while allowing the workers to challenge unfair disciplinary sanctions.