We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
FREE SPEECH OR PUBLIC AGENCY EFFICIENCY?
- Authors
Marczely, Bernadette
- Abstract
The article presents a discussion on the arbitration process related to dismissal of public sector employees within the purview of the U.S. Supreme Court case "Waters v. Churchill." The free speech rights of public employees have frequently played a significant role in their dismissal challenges. So, when a public employee is dismissed for speaking out and then challenges the dismissal, the arbitrator must decide whether the employee's speech is constitutionally protected--thereby removing it as just cause for firing. If the arbitrator finds that the employer has reasonably based its decision to fire on the results of a fair and thorough investigation, then the arbitrator, via "Waters v. Churchill," must accept the employer's conclusion that the employee's speech was unprotected and disruptive, and therefore was a just cause for dismissal. Under "Waters v. Churchill," the arbitrator's own investigation and opinion cannot overrule the reasonably supported judgment of a public employer to fire an employee for the perceived exercise of unprotected speech.
- Subjects
ARBITRATION &; award; DISMISSAL of employees; PUBLIC sector; WATERS v. Churchill (Supreme Court case); LABOR arbitration; FREEDOM of speech
- Publication
Dispute Resolution Journal, 1996, Vol 51, Issue 4, p18
- ISSN
1074-8105
- Publication type
Article