Full bibliography

Incompetence vs. Culpable Non-Performance: The Canadian Arbitration and Adjudication Experience

Resource type
Authors/contributors
Title
Incompetence vs. Culpable Non-Performance: The Canadian Arbitration and Adjudication Experience
Abstract
Inadequate work performance and incompetence have often been considered by Canadian labor arbitrators within the context of promotion, demotion and transfer cases. However, these issues have also frequently arisen, in the last decade, as the primary issues in discipline and discharge cases as well. Inappropriate employee behavior falls into 2 categories: culpable behavior (intential actions) and nonculpable behavior (no-fault action). A culpable failure to perform one's duties is referred to as nonperformance. In cases of culpable behavior, a disciplinary approach is appropriate and required. An analysis of a number of arbitration awards is conducted. It is believed that the distinction between culpable work performance and nonculpable incompetence must be maintained and clearly understood by the management, unions and arbitrators. The distinction is necessary to the achievement of consistency and fairness in dealing with problems of nonculpable incompetence and inadequate work performance in the workplace.
Publication
Relations Industrielles
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
529-544
Date
Summer 1992
Language
English
ISSN
0034379X
Short Title
Incompetence vs. Culpable Non-Performance
Accessed
3/9/15, 9:08 PM
Library Catalog
ProQuest
Rights
Copyright Universite Laval - Departement des Relations Industrielles Summer 1992
Citation
Knight, T. R., McPhillips, D. C., & Shetzer, L. (1992). Incompetence vs. Culpable Non-Performance: The Canadian Arbitration and Adjudication Experience. Relations Industrielles, 47(3), 529–544. http://www.erudit.org/revue/ri/1992/v47/n3/index.html