Unless justified by a valid distinction, an employer may not impose on a worker a much heavier penalty than that imposed on another worker who is known to have committed the same offence. Many countries protect non-unionized workers from wrongful dismissal. England, France, Ireland, Germany, Japan and Italy are among those that require all employers to prove a good or good reason. The question of arbitration was whether there was a „just reason” to let the employee er. In the absence of „just cause” in the AAL, the arbitrator applied the „traditional standard for just cases,” which gives the arbitrator the power to consider the underlying issues and surrounding circumstances necessary to interpret and apply the explicit provisions of the ABA and make a final decision. Therefore, instead of focusing solely on section 24 where it was found that the worker insulted the resident and deciding that the immediate dismissal is justified by the provisions of the CBA, the arbitrator considered: (1) the appropriateness of the employer`s position; (2) dismissal of the worker; (3) the date of the investigation; (4) the fairness of the investigation; (5) evidence against the worker; (6) the possibility of discrimination; and (7) the relationship between the degree of discipline and the nature of the worker`s previous recordings. Pursuant to this standard, the arbitrator decided that the employee`s conduct did not warrant the maximum penalty of immediate termination after the CBA. Most collective agreements stipulate that an employer must prove „just cause” to discipline a worker. „Just Cause” means that the employer must have a reason („cause”) to impose discipline and that the reason must be just („just”). What is a „Just Cause” standard? It is generally accepted that there are seven tests to find out if a boss has used a „just cause” in unraveling the discipline. The Bureau of National Affairs lists them as follows: due process, a legal term for procedure, is implicit in the just cause standard. A priority obligation is to allow a worker to tell his or her page of history before the employer makes a decision to impose discipline.

This case began with the dismissal of a licensed caregiver for verbal abuse of a resident of the nursing home. In the event of dismissal of the worker, the Landkreis (employers) referred to Article 24 of the CBA, which held that „abuse, negligence/exploitation” is not tolerated and that „any case of physical, verbal, mental or medical abuse/negligence/exploitation of a resident must be grounds for immediate dismissal. [Highlighted only here.] The union representing the employee filed a complaint on behalf of the worker and the parties went to arbitration, in accordance with the CBA`s appeal and arbitration procedures. The arbitration question they agreed on was: „Was there a fair reason for the county to resign Ms. Foote as part of the collective agreement? If not, what is the remedy? [Highlighted only here.] In its letter, landkreis agreed that the law provides that district employees who have worked for more than one year are entitled to a load shedding standard for „good reason” and also agreed that „a good reason is reviewed according to traditional standards for fair causes”. The concept of justice is well established in labour law. . .

.