Even if there is no exact proof existing, the employer believes that each supervisor must be responsible for their actions and be willing to accept the consequences that come from their own subdivision's control. For example, let's say there was a small bug Inside a potato chip bag. The bug could have got Inside the bag In any process during which the potato chip was being made, but the employer must decide one of the suspicious departments for the discrepancy. Let's say that the employer fired the supervisor of the final packaging vision.
Even though all packaging is done by machines and the only daily duty of the packaging division is to identify wrong-packaged bags, the employer has made a decision. If there was a fluoroscopic machine that makes it possible to see inside every bag, then things would have resulted differently, but there wasn't one and the packaging supervisor was fired due to "irresponsibility. " This example explained above would be a similar example to why the relevant provisions of the collective bargaining agreement as applied to the facts of he previous case dictate the award. . What actions might the employer or the union has taken to avoid this conflict? I en employer malign nave set up a more strict policy Walt personnel controlling Ana accessing the medications. The total number of keys and a reliable sign-in/out system will be installed. Personnel granted access to the remaining medication will surely receive a proper orientation and training before accessing it. Also, to clarify the unjust "Just cause" standard, a very detailed warning and penalty will be posted to those committing any discrepancy.