An Antinepotism Policy
An Antinepotism Policy Nepotism happens when prejudice is applied when choosing an applicant for a certain position, favor being granted to a relative of one who is already employed. Skills, education, capacity, experience should be key factors in deciding who should fill the position yet in cases of nepotism these things are disregarded. In formal organizations especially with government jobs or contracts, nepotism is a blatant display of negative work ethics and illegal when the basis of hiring is proven to be so. The interest of a company or an office is to fill the vacant position with the most qualified, competent, and capable candidate out of all the applicants. In the case study; Keith Walton (plaintiff), was an employee The Company (defendant), working as a Journeyman Mechanic. He is the nephew of Bill Williams, also an employee of The Company. After The Company was informed in October 1991 that Mr. Walton had an uncle working for the company he was questioned and confirmed that Mr. Williams was in fact his uncle. On November 2, 1991 Mr. Walton was terminated for violation of its anti-nepotism policy. Mr. Walton alleges The Company tortuously violated public policy when it fired him and he is seeking reinstatement, back pay, and attorney fees and costs. Based upon the provided information as the arbitrator I am dismissing the complaint.
ISSUE PRESENTED
“Was the grievant Keith Walton properly discharged for allegedly violating the Company's anti-nepotism policy?” The Union took the position that even though The Company has the right to establish policy on hiring of relatives and anti-nepotism they cannot pick and choose when to enforce said policies. The parties do not dispute that Mr. Walton was terminated because The Company enforced its anti-nepotism policy that was incorporated in the company handbook in 1980. The policy clearly states that, “It prohibits simultaneous employment by “close relatives” and “immediate family.”
ISSUE PRESENTED
“Was the grievant Keith Walton properly discharged for allegedly violating the Company's anti-nepotism policy?” The Union took the position that even though The Company has the right to establish policy on hiring of relatives and anti-nepotism they cannot pick and choose when to enforce said policies. The parties do not dispute that Mr. Walton was terminated because The Company enforced its anti-nepotism policy that was incorporated in the company handbook in 1980. The policy clearly states that, “It prohibits simultaneous employment by “close relatives” and “immediate family.”