Paper Writing Services s off-duty hours. Anticipating a “safety” argument, Fischer pointed out that officers wear clips, glasses, pins, name tags, and any number of

Review the following scenario and determine how you would rule in ts case if you were the arbitrator (decision maker). Explain the reasoning for your decision and tell the group if you tnk ts is a relatively minor issue or a major issue. Officer Clark Fischer was ordered by s police sergeant to remove an earring (ear stud) from s left ear wle on duty. The police cef upheld the sergeant’s order. Officer Fischer complied with the order but grieved the issue with the local union. Officer Fischer alleged there was no written probition to the wearing of earrings by police officers in either the union contract (collective bargaining agreement) or in the rules by wch the force operates. He pointed out, in fact, that the cef mself wore an earring in s off-duty hours. Anticipating a “safety” argument, Fischer pointed out that officers wear clips, glasses, pins, name tags, and any number of items that present the same kinds of risk or more severe risks. The officer also argued that wearing an earring on duty gave m an advantage in s job when dealing with disenfrancsed youth naturally hostile to a traditional police officer. The city, in defending the “no earring” rule, argued that it was a safety issue because in a struggle the earring could pierce the officer’s skull, and the city believed an earring would generate more negative than positive reactions from most of the people the officer encountered.