Barger argues that its employment relationship with Solid Platforms is nevertheless “as it sees fit”, since it states that there was no collective agreement requiring Solid Platforms to have a “reason” to terminate its employment relationship and that [it] did not have a complaint procedure in the event of such dismissal. (Id. to 8.) This statement states that his employment relationship was rather “at will” and that it could be interrupted at any time and for any reason. (Id. at 9.) Haynes does not support the argument that a member of the workers` union cannot bring a greeley appeal, but Haynes asks the court to examine the specific content of the collective agreement to determine whether it limits the employer`s right to terminate on his account. Although the applicants had been members of the union, there was no collective agreement requiring Solid Platforms to be “right” to terminate their employment relationship and, in the event of such dismissal, they did not have an appeal procedure. (Id. at 8.) Bargers and Nealan were therefore “on parole.” (Id. at 9.) Barger also maintains that the judgment of this tribunal in williams supports his position, although the court rejected the applicant`s unlawful dismissal action because the applicant was a member of the trade union. 2010 WL 909883 to *6.
He argues that the subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice, which rejected a summary judgment and rejected as unfounded a strike request, which, of course, was adopted after its dismissal order, shows that the Court examined the specific content of the collective agreement and found that the collective agreement at issue granted the employer the exclusive right to discipline and destitution workers on duly grounds. Justified. A meal. Williams, 1:09-cv-743, 2011 WL 2135179 (S.D. Ohio, May 27, 2011) (summary judgment), aff`d, 487 Fed. App`x 272 (6th Cir. 2012). This argument is not a valid argument. Applications for termination are not only subject to a very different scale than applications for summary judgment, but there is also no evidence that the Court considered the content of the collective agreement at the stage of the application for termination prior to its summary judgment. On the contrary, the Tribunal`s denunciation was based on the factual allegations resulting from the amendment of the complaint. 2010 WL 909883, at *1.
The dismissal order is in itself, and the story that followed does not reinforce Barger`s position here. Barger does not refer to a case in which the court upholded an action by Greeley, although the employment relationship is governed by a collective agreement, as is the case here. .