Please read this case study and answer the questions below in a detailed manner!

Mick Water is a public employee who had started to work for the city of New Hausen with more than 150 employees located in Nova Scotia 16 years ago. Nine years ago, he was promoted to dispatcher-scheduler specialist for the local 100% city owned bus company. The main components of his job involve scheduling transit buses and dispatching buses and individual customers calls for access-a-bus services. Water is not a member of a trade-union. He is father of two children, the 15-year old Charly and 12-year old Andre, who is autistic and requires considerable childcare assistance. The employee handbook that contains a number of different workplace policies includes a section that reads the city retains all rights with regard to the maintenance of discipline at the workplace, including the right to demote or discharge for just cause. All employees receive a copy of the handbook when they commence employment and, every two years, each employee receives an updated version. Mick Water acknowledged receiving the most recent copy last January.

Waters coworker generally agree that Water is a very pleasant guy with a sense of humor and doing a great job. The performance appraisal for the dispatcher-schedulers is very basic. It is determined by averaging the scores of four items (job knowledge; ability to collaborate; dependability/accuracy; and handling unexpected vehicle maintenance and operator absences). The scoring scale ranges from 1 (= unsatisfactory performance) and 5 (= outstanding performance) for each of the four items. Each employee has a personal performance appraisal interview with his or her supervisor and signs a form acknowledging that the interview took place. On his last evaluation, Mick received the following scores: job knowledge = 4.1; cooperation: 4.2; dependability/accuracy 4.2; flexibility in handling unexpected situations = 4.2. In the three years prior, Waters average performance appraisal scores had ranged from 4.1 to 4.4. The average for Waters workgroup is around 3.9. Campbell, the supervisor, claims: All of the dispatcher-schedulers are very good employees their job is important and we could not tolerate poor performers. The same performance evaluation appraisal tool is also used at various other cities in Nova Scotia and average ratings for the various dispatcher groups are very different.

A view in Waters personnel file indicates that he has received two recorded disciplinary actions in the last two years:

a) 28 months ago: Water received a written warning for being late for work. He had slept in and was 25 minutes late for his scheduled shift. 2

b) 16 months ago: Water was given a five-day suspension (without pay) for inappropriate behaviour at work. He was one of 5 employees who had made Brian Campbell, the dispatchers supervisor, a special chocolate brownie dessert to celebrate Campbells birthday. However, as a joke, the group decided to put a laxative in the brownie. Campbell ate the brownie, became ill, and had to miss the following workday. The employees felt sorry and apologized with Campbell for their conduct. Campbell was, of course, not happy with the incident but was forgiving them. While the employees argued that they were just playing a harmless thought joke, and Campbell was very lenient, Campbells superiors viewed the matter differently and as very serious. After reviewing all of the evidence, the employer suspended each of the five employees for five days. In the incident letter placed in each employees file related to this suspension, the city indicated that the behaviour was clearly unacceptable and that any repeat infractions could result in discharge.

Brian Campbell is considered by most employees to be a good supervisor. Employees stated that he is fair, conducts performance evaluations in an impartial and timely manner, and gives feedback to employees on a regular basis. However, Campbell has a bad temper and on rare occasions he has lost it and had been verbally abusive to employees. While these outbursts tend to be quite rare (occurring maybe two or three times a year), employees fear that they will be Campbells next victim. It is almost impossible to predict when those rare outbursts occur. As one employee stated anonymously: Brian is a very good supervisor most of the time. However, he takes on a different personality when he is angry, and I just hope that I will not be the one that he verbally attacks. Once youve witnessed one of these outbursts, you can never totally relax around him. This inconsistent behaviour frightens me. This is all known to Campbells supervisor but they decided to turn a closed eye to it since he is doing otherwise a great job and is very reliable.

After the waves had settled, work was continuing smoothly and without problems for several months until one Friday afternoon during coffee break. During the day shift, employees are entitled to a 15-minute break at 10:30 am and 3:00 pm. There were about 25 employees in the break room, and Mick Water went to his usual table. Five other colleagues were also sitting at Waters table (each table accommodates six people). Mick placed his sandwich and water bottle at his spot at the table and then noticed that he had a small cut on his arm. He took a quick sip of his water and then left the break room for about five minutes to wash his arm and put a small bandage one the cut. Brian Campbell frequently skipped the afternoon break if he had a backlog of work, but when he did take a break, he usually sat at the same table as Mick. When Water returned from the washroom, he observed that Campbell was sitting at his place as one of the other employees was sitting in the spot Campbell usually occupied. Water also noticed that his sandwich and water had been pushed to one side.

Water stated: Excuse me, Brian, but you are in my spot. Campbell turned to Water, gave him a slight smile, and replied: I dont see your name anywhere on the table. Find a spot somewhere else. And that is an order from your supervisor. Mick refused to back down. My drink and sandwich are right in front of you, he declared. Im not kidding, Brian. Get out of my spot.

Brian became suddenly angry, smashed his fist on Waters sandwich, and dropped his pen into Waters water bottle. Take your sandwich and drink and go somewhere else, he ordered. Im not letting you run the garage. At this point, Water moved behind Campbell, grabbed the chair Campbell was sitting on, and jerked it backward. Campbell fell on the floor. The water he had in his hand also fell down, and some of it splashed on his body and face. While some of the other employees witnessing the incident laughed, a hush fell over the room when it became evident that Campbell was hurt. He went to the emergency room at the local hospital and was diagnosed with a bruised tailbone. While not serious, the injury required Campbell to miss eight days of work. Mick was sent home and told not to report to work the next day.

On the Monday, following the incident, the Human Resources manager, Alex Morrisette, met with a number of the employees who had been present at the table. After reviewing all of the evidence and meeting with Campbell and Mick, the City of New Hausen decided to terminate Water, who was notified of the termination for just cause two days later as he was called back into the HRM office. There was a security guard present that walked him to his locker where he had the opportunity to take out his belongings.

As Mick finished packing his personal belonging he noticed that the security guard had filmed him cleaning out his locker. He later on learned that the recording were being streamed on the video monitors placed all around the garage. The subtitle of the video said: This is how we deal with violent employees!. Some of Micks colleagues were also his friends and after his dismissal they suddenly did not want to meet him anymore. In the evening after his dismissal, he started to have a first panic attack - they even got more intensive with time passing! Eight days after the incident, Mick Water wrote a formal letter apologizing for his conduct to Campbell and the City. In the letters, Water stated that I didnt mean to hurt Brian, and I am sorry for my actions. He had hoped that this will also be communicated to all employees and, perhaps, some of his old friends, as a result, would be now willing to meet with him again. However, that had no effect, and a large part of his friendship network was cut off as a result and this further pushed him into a severe depression in the months after the incident. Mick soon needed psychoanalytic treatment and antidepressant medication to get by in the small city where almost everyone knew everyone.

Questions:

1. Discuss if the employer had just cause to terminate Mick Water and analyze if the employer met all requirements according to the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Nova Scotia and related normative frameworks (Note: if no explicit information is provided in the case you have to assume that relevant or required activities and procedures were not in place!) how to deal with violence at the workplace in this case. Be very specific and refer to the precise stipulations and regulations in those documents!

2. Discuss the dismissal process through the lens of organizational justice theory and elaborate on what legal consequences the dismissal process may potentially have for the employer.