Legislation, arbitral and judicial decisions, and public opinion provide evidence of increasing concern for protecting employees from unfair dismissal in both union and nonunion firms. Management's right to discharge is being questioned today more than at any other time in the history of labor-management relations. Thus, organizations must stay abreast of the developments that affect their right to discharge employees. This study investigates arbitration awards and judicial decisions in discharge cases to provide answers to these questions. Are companies aware of the types of misconduct for which discharge is considered appropriate? Are companies aware of what constitutes the burden of proof requirements in discharge cases? Does management know and follow the proper procedures in handling discharge cases? The purposes of the study are 1. To determine the extent to which discharges were overturned or modified because the company did not meet the burden of proving a reasonable cause for discharge; 2. To determine the extent to which discharges were overturned or modified because the company did not follow proper dismissal procedures; 3. To develop a model set of guidelines to assist companies in the proper handling of discharge cases. These guidelines present criteria for meeting the just cause and procedural …

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 on the federal civil service through the establishment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was designed to correct many of the abuses which existed under the Civil Service Commission related to appeals procedures and inefficiency within the federal government. The majority of data collected for this study were obtained from the Dallas field office of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which covers approximately 275,000 federal employees in a five-state area. Additional data, related to all of the regional field offices of the Merit Systems Protection Board, were obtained from Washington, D.C. Two research tools were used to collect data from the Dallas field office: a questionnaire and a personal interview. Three hypotheses were examined. Hypothesis I stated that the creation of the Merit Systems Protection Board has not given presiding officials any additional authority to handle or decide adverse action cases brought within their jurisdiction. Hypothesis II stated that the length of time needed to process adverse action cases has not decreased since the creation of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Hypothesis III stated that …