Labour Law and Labour Relations Board Research Paper

Labour Law and Labour transaction Board - inquiry Paper ExampleThe employee filed a LRB complaint since the executive of the union refused to reinstate her employment and it had violated DFR (duty of fair faceation). This DFR complaint had a chance of either existence successful or not. The purposes of the DFR are in one accord and in good faith represent an employee in bargain of the possible mistreatment or impose on _or_ oppress of labor from them. In this instance, though the union had been breached as no one wanted to represent her and the union leader never took the matter for arbitration. The union is held likely if it refuses to represent an employee or when it discriminates against the employee due to race, age, their status in the union, creed, nationality, sex orientation and of course their personality. This is important because it ensures that any course of action in whatever scotch is put forward on the basis of the merit of the grievance in the instance. This may be disputed only in the instances when the grievance in the case is not valid. Though in instances of hostility it is not appropriate for the union to decline to arbitrary represent the employee. If the grievance is ill motivated or not of any relevance then the union is free to decline representation. In this case, the employee who had been accused of stealing had to be represented because the union is liable for his well being. In Alberta Labor relations code cases, there was a case where a complainant Craig Shaughnessy filed a duty of fair representation since the union did not represent him fairly during his dismissal from Aluma Systems Inc. He contacted his supervisor who did not help him much either. Eventually the union did not side with the complainant, as they could not the safety issues he claimed to be fleeing from at the time of his departure from the work place without the consent of any authorities. The union further explained to the complaint that he should be res ponsible of his actions or inactions as he made his own decision on that particular day when he left without consent. He had to accept he complicated the circumstance for himself. His case was dismissed with this basis in mind. This is the same with the bit which the employee who had been accused of stealing product from the company her chances of reinstatement were almost nil as it is that she is a victim of circumstance she had not stolen anything and what she was accused of stealing did not cost anything more than $10. She could not defend herself, as the union did not even consider arbitration for her case. In that case, the termination was left to stand as it was demanded by the unions executive and thus she had no choice but to accept the situation as it presented itself to her. The union could not defend her as her grievance was of low success probability. Thus, it did not take this case into consideration. The second case is an instance where a unionized employee has had a back related problem and this has resulted in her absenteeism that is two and half times, the recommended average of the companysrequirement. The company needs to fill the position of this employee with someone whose attention is more certain and assured. This move is considerably human since the employee did not intend for anything to happen to her while working at the company (Marten,1961). In Alberta Labor Relations Board, Susan Iuni of Rocky view Hospital filed a complaint that her bargaining agent the Canadian Union of Public Employees had failed to represent her fairly in respect to her