Sexual Harassment, Arbitrators and Vacated Awards Essay

Sexual Harassment, Arbitrators and Vacated Awards - Essay ExampleSuch portrays reinstating the accused are likely to be vacated if a company has an express inner molestation policy or on the basis of legal and social norms. In Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 7761, the accused was discharged by Stroehmann for violating the rule prohibiting immoral conduct after the employee of a customer alleged that he had touched her breast, pushed himself against her and made sexually explicit remarks. The judge ruled that the companys investigation into this incident was insufficient. The 3rd Circuit Court vacated the award, stating that there is a well-defined and dominant domain policy concerning sexual harassment in the workplace which can be ascertained by reference to law and legal precedent. The court also pointed out that the arbitration award would have affected the employers ability to prevent sexual harassment2.Although the courts upheld termination of employment where sexual har assment was claimed, these decisions do not require employers to terminate an accused harasser in all instances. The employer must determine whether the harassment occurred and then its response must be calculated to prevent further harassment, given the particular facts and circumstances at the time. If the termination results in a grievance, the arbitrator has to determine whether the termination is supported by just cause. Part of these considerations is to determine the relief, if any, in a case.The public policy excommunication to enforcement of labor arbitration awards arises when an award reinstates a previously discharged individual. The usual standard for discipline and discharge in labor cases is just cause, which does not have a precise marrow and the arbitrator has to decide on a case to case basis. Therefore, it seems inappropriate for a court to set aside an arbitral decision reinstating a grievant only on the grounds that it does not agree with the arbitrators asse ssment that just cause was lacking. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has recognized the public policy exception hence courts have a right to apply it under appropriate circumstances. Although the Supreme Court has not specified as to what kind of award violates public policy, it has said that public policy is to be ascertained by reference to laws and legal precedents. Further, it has acknowledged that the public policy exception is narrow and therefore for an aver to be vacated on these grounds, the award must violate a specific law or court decision and the occurrence of such a rapine is to be determined only by the courts. Clearly, arbitrators possess no independent powers beyond what the parties confer on them through their contracts and the Courts in general, have allowed arbitrators to make authoritative inferences regarding the possible future conduct of grievants when they determine their awards. The courts assessment of whether public policy was violated by an arbitr ation award has at times been based on these inferences. The Labor law policy favors disputes going to arbitration and the Collective Bargaining Agreement or CBAs usually authorize arbitrators to reinstate employees. The courts, in general, have held that a public policy collision occurs only if positive law explicitly prevents reinstatement. However, the Supreme Cour