The Argument Sample Clauses

The Argument. Unless otherwise mutually agreed, the parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to authorities such as ▇▇▇▇▇ and Beatty, Palmer, etc. However, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement be canvassed to ensure that all relevant provisions are put before the mediator-arbitrator.

The Argument. As agreed, the parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to ▇▇▇▇▇ and Beatty, Palmer, etc.

The Argument. The Parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, etc. However, it is imperative that all relevant Clauses of the Collective Agreement are put before the arbitrator.

The Argument. One of the areas of Just Cause in which the Union is particularly successful is the failure of Management to meet its obligation to conduct a fair, thorough, and objective in- vestigation prior to initiating discipline. Management must establish the facts not through presumption or assumption or reliance on other investigations. The supervisor who initiates discipline through a written request for discipline or drafts a disciplinary notice without such a request is the manager responsible for having investigated prior to the initiation. Checking records, reviewing statements and documents, interviewing witnesses, reviewing video tapes or photographs, listening to audio recordings, these are all possible elements of a supervisor's investigation. Many times, a supervisor does a minimal--at best--review of the situation which may include almost no first-hand investigation. When this occurs, that super- visor has violated one of the most basic, and important, due process rights of an employee subject to discipline. When management fails to uncover evidence and facts related to circumstances which result in discipline, they clearly fall short in their Just Cause obligation. However, the efforts man- agement employs to attempt to uncover evidence and facts is extremely important to our Just Cause defense--no matter what those efforts would or would not have revealed. Perhaps an employee is removed for sexual harassment of a customer. That removal is based upon a written letter received from the customer. In addition, the supervisor receives two let- ters from two other customers seemingly corroborating the first customer's letter. The super- visor fires the employee based upon the three letters. If the supervisor did not personally speak with those three customers whose letters he is relying upon to impose removal, then the investigation is inadequate and does not meet the Just Cause requirement. That supervi- sor had an obligation to contact and inquire. That is the "thorough" obligation. It is not enough to simply read letters and rush to judgement. Perhaps discussion with the three cus- tomers would have fully supported the letters and the action. No matter, the failure to thor- oughly establish the facts renders the investigation less than what is necessary to prove Just Cause. When arguing no Just Cause exists due to lack of a thorough, fair, and objective investiga- tion, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ must construct every avenue the supervisor could have, and reasonably sho...

The Argument. As agreed, the parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, etc.

The Argument. The Parties will be limited to the usage of three (3) legal cases but may refer to ▇▇▇▇▇ and Beatty, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, etc. However, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement be canvassed by each Party to ensure that all relevant clauses are put before the arbitrator.

The Argument. The Parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, etc. However, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of the Collective Agreement be canvassed by each Party to ensure that all relevant articles are put before the Arbitrator.

The Argument. The parties will not cite legal precedents but may refer to ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ etc. However, it is imperative that the relevant provisions of this Agreement be canvassed by a representative to ensure that all relevant clauses are put before the arbitrator.

The Argument. Existing approaches 1. Gender in declension 2. Gender declension 3. Very few gender in declension 1. Feminine agreement contexts differ by the presence of a feminine gender feature in a noun phrase. 2. Restrictions are due to inability to insert an inflectional exponent. ã→ Additional gender feature rules out insertion of a nominal inflectional exponent. 3. Feminine agreement is acceptable only in those cells of a paradigm where class I inflection is syncretic to class III. These exponents are underspecified for gender.