1. As an attorney for Bainbridge Borough, develop a case to support the council’s rejection of Carol Fern’s unpaid maternity leave request. 2. As an attorney for AFSCME Local 10, develop an argument to support your client’s contention that the council’s rejection of Carol’s unpaid maternity leave request violated the collective bargaining agreement. 3. As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why?

QUESTION

There are three areas of focus for this assignment:
1. As an attorney for Bainbridge Borough, develop a case to support the council’s rejection of Carol Fern’s unpaid maternity leave request.
2. As an attorney for AFSCME Local 10, develop an argument to support your client’s contention that the council’s rejection of Carol’s unpaid maternity leave request violated the collective bargaining agreement.
3. As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why?

Write a two- to three-page paper, (double-spaced, 12 point type, APA style) that outlines the case for Bainbridge Borough, the case for AFSCME Local 10, and how you would rule as an arbitrator based on the facts you have for this case.

ANSWER

 Examining the Rejection of Carol Fern’s Unpaid Maternity Leave Request: A Legal Analysis

Introduction

In this essay, we will explore the case surrounding Carol Fern’s unpaid maternity leave request as an attorney representing Bainbridge Borough and AFSCME Local 10. We will present arguments to support the council’s rejection of Carol’s request, analyze the potential violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and evaluate how an arbitrator should rule in this matter.

Case to Support the Council’s Rejection

The council’s rejection of Carol Fern’s unpaid maternity leave request can be justified based on several factors:

Municipal Policies and Resources

Bainbridge Borough has established policies regarding employee benefits, including maternity leave. The council must ensure the responsible allocation of limited resources to provide fair benefits for all employees. Granting unpaid leave to Carol may put an undue burden on the borough’s operations and potentially affect the delivery of essential services to the community.

Operational Continuity

Denying Carol’s unpaid maternity leave request is necessary to maintain operational continuity within the borough. Allowing an extended unpaid absence could disrupt workflow and create additional costs associated with hiring temporary replacements or redistributing workloads among employees. The council’s decision aims to ensure uninterrupted service provision to the community.

 Comparable Treatment

The council’s rejection of Carol’s request is in line with the treatment of other employees in similar situations. Consistency in granting unpaid leave requests is crucial to prevent potential claims of favoritism or discrimination. The council must adhere to established policies and treat all employees fairly and equally.

Argument Supporting AFSCME Local 10’s Contention

AFSCME Local 10 can argue that the council’s rejection of Carol’s unpaid maternity leave request violated the collective bargaining agreement:

Contractual Rights

The collective bargaining agreement includes provisions related to employee benefits, including maternity leave. The agreement ensures that employees are entitled to certain rights and benefits without discrimination or arbitrary denial. By rejecting Carol’s request, the council may have violated the contractual obligations set forth in the agreement.

 Nondiscriminatory Treatment

The collective bargaining agreement promotes fair and equitable treatment of employees. Denying Carol’s unpaid maternity leave request while granting similar requests to other employees could be seen as discriminatory and inconsistent with the agreement’s provisions. AFSCME Local 10 can argue that the council’s decision violated the principle of nondiscrimination.

Arbitrator’s Ruling and Justification

As an arbitrator, the ruling should be based on a careful consideration of the facts and applicable laws. Considering the presented arguments, the ruling would favor AFSCME Local 10 and Carol Fern for the following reasons:

Collective Bargaining Agreement

The collective bargaining agreement establishes contractual rights and obligations that bind both the council and the union. If the agreement explicitly guarantees unpaid maternity leave as a benefit, the council’s rejection of Carol’s request may be a violation of the agreement.

 Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination

If it can be demonstrated that the council has previously granted unpaid maternity leave to other employees in similar circumstances, denying Carol’s request would constitute unequal treatment. The arbitrator should uphold the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, ensuring that employees are treated fairly and consistently.

Conclusion

The case surrounding Carol Fern’s unpaid maternity leave request presents contrasting perspectives from the attorney representing Bainbridge Borough and AFSCME Local 10. The council’s rejection of Carol’s request may be justified based on municipal policies, operational continuity, and comparable treatment. However, the collective bargaining agreement and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination support AFSCME Local 10’s contention that the rejection violated the agreement. As an arbitrator, ruling in favor of AFSCME Local 10 and Carol Fern would uphold the contractual rights and ensure fair treatment of employees.