Chat with AI
Deck 14: Grievance Arbitration
Full screen (f)
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Question
Unlock Deck
Sign up to unlock the cards in this deck!
Unlock Deck
Unlock Deck
1/9
Play
Full screen (f)
Deck 14: Grievance Arbitration
1
Cases
About six months after the new GMFC-Local 384 contract was ratified, four grievances were sent to arbitration by the union. The company and the union agreed that all four grievances would be heard on separate dates by the same arbitrator. Your name was on the panel the FMCS sent to the parties, and they selected you to arbitrate the grievances. You agreed and have heard all four grievances over the past three days. Now you have to prepare your awards.
CASE 1
George Jones was a level 1 assembler in the heavy-components assembly department. He worked with six other assemblers of the same grade, constructing cabs for power shovels. The supervisor, Ralph Barnes, was in charge of three of these heavy-assembly crews. George Jones had been with GMFC for about four years. Over the past six months, he had spent all of his time with his present work crew. His work record had been unremarkable. He had two unexcused absences but no problems with supervision.
On May 6, Jones struck a co-worker, Elliot Johnson, with his fist, rendering him unconscious. As soon as Barnes arrived on the scene and gave first aid, he asked the work crew what had happened. They had only seen Jones strike Johnson. After Johnson regained consciousness, Barnes asked him what happened. Johnson stated he and Jones had been talking when Jones suddenly turned and swung at him. Barnes then asked Jones what happened. Jones, who is the only African American employee in his work group, said Johnson had been making racial slurs toward him ever since he joined the crew, and this morning he had been pushed over the brink when Johnson said, "If it weren't for affirmative action, welfare would be the only thing that would keep a shirt on your back."
From his supervisor training course, Barnes knew it was company policy to discharge anyone who struck another employee or started a fight. Thus, he called security to take Jones to the HR department for termination. When Jones arrived there, he demanded to see Ralph Murphy, the union steward in his area. After conferring, Murphy filed a grievance on Jones's behalf, alleging the company had violated Section 4.02 of the contract by discharging him without cause. His grievance stated the attack on Johnson was justified given his past harassment and punching him seemed to be the "only way to get him off my back."
When Murphy gave the grievance to Barnes, it was immediately denied. Barnes said, "The rule is ironclad, as far as I'm concerned. They said we supervisors didn't have any latitude on this issue."
Murphy then presented copies of the grievance to the shift IR representative, Carolyn Foster, and the general supervisor, Neal Young. In her examination of the grievance, Foster called Johnson and Cronholm, Jensen, and Albers (three other employees in the work group) to her office separately. When questioned, Johnson repeated his allegation that Jones's attack was unprovoked and adamantly denied ever making racial slurs toward him. Information from Jensen and Albers supported Johnson's denial of racial slurs, but Cronholm said he had repeatedly heard Johnson make disparaging remarks to Jones and Jones had asked him to stop. After weighing this information and considering company policy on fighting, she upheld Barnes's action.
The union continued to demand Jones's reinstatement with full back pay, and management adamantly refused.
When the case was heard, the union's grievance alleged not only that had Jones been discharged without cause (Section 4.02) but also that the discharge had been racially motivated, violating the EEO section (12.16a). In its opening argument, the company asked you to find the grievance nonarbitrable because Jones could file a charge with the EEOC under Title VII if your award upheld the discharge. The company also said the discrimination issue was not arbitrable because it had not been raised in Step 3 as provided in EEO Section 12.16b. You noted the arguments but reserved your ruling on arbitrability for the decision you would prepare.
Both sides presented their evidence. All of it was in substantial agreement with what Barnes and Foster had found in their investigation. Jones and Johnson held to their stories, as did Jensen, Albers, and Cronholm. The company introduced evidence to show that without exception employees had been terminated for fighting. It also provided statistics showing that 12 percent of the eight employees discharged for fighting over the past three years were African American and 14 percent of the production labor force was African American.
In this case, your award should contain:
Your ruling on the arbitrability of the grievance.
Your rationale in finding on the merits of the case (if arbitrable).
If arbitrable, the degree to which you would grant the relief Jones is asking or uphold management.
About six months after the new GMFC-Local 384 contract was ratified, four grievances were sent to arbitration by the union. The company and the union agreed that all four grievances would be heard on separate dates by the same arbitrator. Your name was on the panel the FMCS sent to the parties, and they selected you to arbitrate the grievances. You agreed and have heard all four grievances over the past three days. Now you have to prepare your awards.
CASE 1
George Jones was a level 1 assembler in the heavy-components assembly department. He worked with six other assemblers of the same grade, constructing cabs for power shovels. The supervisor, Ralph Barnes, was in charge of three of these heavy-assembly crews. George Jones had been with GMFC for about four years. Over the past six months, he had spent all of his time with his present work crew. His work record had been unremarkable. He had two unexcused absences but no problems with supervision.
On May 6, Jones struck a co-worker, Elliot Johnson, with his fist, rendering him unconscious. As soon as Barnes arrived on the scene and gave first aid, he asked the work crew what had happened. They had only seen Jones strike Johnson. After Johnson regained consciousness, Barnes asked him what happened. Johnson stated he and Jones had been talking when Jones suddenly turned and swung at him. Barnes then asked Jones what happened. Jones, who is the only African American employee in his work group, said Johnson had been making racial slurs toward him ever since he joined the crew, and this morning he had been pushed over the brink when Johnson said, "If it weren't for affirmative action, welfare would be the only thing that would keep a shirt on your back."
From his supervisor training course, Barnes knew it was company policy to discharge anyone who struck another employee or started a fight. Thus, he called security to take Jones to the HR department for termination. When Jones arrived there, he demanded to see Ralph Murphy, the union steward in his area. After conferring, Murphy filed a grievance on Jones's behalf, alleging the company had violated Section 4.02 of the contract by discharging him without cause. His grievance stated the attack on Johnson was justified given his past harassment and punching him seemed to be the "only way to get him off my back."
When Murphy gave the grievance to Barnes, it was immediately denied. Barnes said, "The rule is ironclad, as far as I'm concerned. They said we supervisors didn't have any latitude on this issue."
Murphy then presented copies of the grievance to the shift IR representative, Carolyn Foster, and the general supervisor, Neal Young. In her examination of the grievance, Foster called Johnson and Cronholm, Jensen, and Albers (three other employees in the work group) to her office separately. When questioned, Johnson repeated his allegation that Jones's attack was unprovoked and adamantly denied ever making racial slurs toward him. Information from Jensen and Albers supported Johnson's denial of racial slurs, but Cronholm said he had repeatedly heard Johnson make disparaging remarks to Jones and Jones had asked him to stop. After weighing this information and considering company policy on fighting, she upheld Barnes's action.
The union continued to demand Jones's reinstatement with full back pay, and management adamantly refused.
When the case was heard, the union's grievance alleged not only that had Jones been discharged without cause (Section 4.02) but also that the discharge had been racially motivated, violating the EEO section (12.16a). In its opening argument, the company asked you to find the grievance nonarbitrable because Jones could file a charge with the EEOC under Title VII if your award upheld the discharge. The company also said the discrimination issue was not arbitrable because it had not been raised in Step 3 as provided in EEO Section 12.16b. You noted the arguments but reserved your ruling on arbitrability for the decision you would prepare.
Both sides presented their evidence. All of it was in substantial agreement with what Barnes and Foster had found in their investigation. Jones and Johnson held to their stories, as did Jensen, Albers, and Cronholm. The company introduced evidence to show that without exception employees had been terminated for fighting. It also provided statistics showing that 12 percent of the eight employees discharged for fighting over the past three years were African American and 14 percent of the production labor force was African American.
In this case, your award should contain:
Your ruling on the arbitrability of the grievance.
Your rationale in finding on the merits of the case (if arbitrable).
If arbitrable, the degree to which you would grant the relief Jones is asking or uphold management.
Case summary:
Mr. Y is on a panel of this case as an arbitrator. In the case, Mr. GJ is alleged for punching his fist over Mr. EJ which made him unconscious. When the supervisor asked GJ for his action, he said that EJ had been making racial comments over his African American origin since the first day he joined the organization, and today he crossed all his limits by making a completely racial comment over him which made GJ to push him. As per company's policy, this kind of physical action from the employee's side strictly leads to his termination. To safeguard GJ, union representative Mr. RM registered GJ's side and his arguments for undertaking this type of action towards the management but when the management simply denied retrieving GJ back, this case went to arbitration.
Solution:
1. Mr. Y ruled that Mr. GJ will be given his position back in the organization with the same benefits and pay. This is because he was under constant pressure and stress that led him punch his co-worker who was making a racial comment over him.
2. Th merits of this case is that GJ got physical with EJ to retaliate his behavior making racial comments over him which led EJ to undertake this action. GJ was a prey in this case who had been made to suffer because of his racial differences.
3. In this case, there should be complete relief given to Mr. GJ to ensure that the racial discrimination that he has faced from his co-worker should not affect his employment in the company. And thereby, Mr. Y will uphold the management's decision and will retrieve Mr. EJ back in the organization.
Mr. Y is on a panel of this case as an arbitrator. In the case, Mr. GJ is alleged for punching his fist over Mr. EJ which made him unconscious. When the supervisor asked GJ for his action, he said that EJ had been making racial comments over his African American origin since the first day he joined the organization, and today he crossed all his limits by making a completely racial comment over him which made GJ to push him. As per company's policy, this kind of physical action from the employee's side strictly leads to his termination. To safeguard GJ, union representative Mr. RM registered GJ's side and his arguments for undertaking this type of action towards the management but when the management simply denied retrieving GJ back, this case went to arbitration.
Solution:
1. Mr. Y ruled that Mr. GJ will be given his position back in the organization with the same benefits and pay. This is because he was under constant pressure and stress that led him punch his co-worker who was making a racial comment over him.
2. Th merits of this case is that GJ got physical with EJ to retaliate his behavior making racial comments over him which led EJ to undertake this action. GJ was a prey in this case who had been made to suffer because of his racial differences.
3. In this case, there should be complete relief given to Mr. GJ to ensure that the racial discrimination that he has faced from his co-worker should not affect his employment in the company. And thereby, Mr. Y will uphold the management's decision and will retrieve Mr. EJ back in the organization.
2
Given the Supreme Court and NLRB rulings, what is the scope and finality associated with rights arbitration proceedings in the private sector?
Alternative dispute resolution: It refers to the adopting of techniques like mediation and arbitration in order to resolve the dispute without lawsuit. Moreover, alternative dispute resolution refers to settlement with parties without going to court proceedings. Under this approach, disagreeing parties come and negotiate and reached the consensus without interference of law courts. If the parties involved in the arbitration agreement feel that the decision held by the arbitrator is not valid or reasonable, then the parties can file a suit in the court of law. The court on the basis of available facts and evidence has the power to set aside the order of the arbitrator.
Both the Supreme Court and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have upheld the finality of arbitration proceedings. In 1960, the Supreme Court governed on the legitimacy and finality of rights arbitration for settling intracontract disputes.
The Court governed that decisions w.r.t arbitrators were basically not subjected to judicial review. Moreover, it laid down for three basic protections w.r.t arbitration. Firstly, clauses with respect to contractual arbitration necessitate parties to adjudicate unsettled grievances. Secondly, all the grievances need to be determined by arbitrators, but not by the courts. Thirdly, if there is an arbitration clause exist, if an argument is evidently outside the contract provisions, then court will direct for arbitration process. The NLRB, to prevent "forum shopping" and to reduce its caseload has adopted rules for deferring to arbitration when a contract violation and ULP are alleged simultaneously.
Both the Supreme Court and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have upheld the finality of arbitration proceedings. In 1960, the Supreme Court governed on the legitimacy and finality of rights arbitration for settling intracontract disputes.
The Court governed that decisions w.r.t arbitrators were basically not subjected to judicial review. Moreover, it laid down for three basic protections w.r.t arbitration. Firstly, clauses with respect to contractual arbitration necessitate parties to adjudicate unsettled grievances. Secondly, all the grievances need to be determined by arbitrators, but not by the courts. Thirdly, if there is an arbitration clause exist, if an argument is evidently outside the contract provisions, then court will direct for arbitration process. The NLRB, to prevent "forum shopping" and to reduce its caseload has adopted rules for deferring to arbitration when a contract violation and ULP are alleged simultaneously.
3
Cases
About six months after the new GMFC-Local 384 contract was ratified, four grievances were sent to arbitration by the union. The company and the union agreed that all four grievances would be heard on separate dates by the same arbitrator. Your name was on the panel the FMCS sent to the parties, and they selected you to arbitrate the grievances. You agreed and have heard all four grievances over the past three days. Now you have to prepare your awards.
CASE 2
Until the point at which the present grievance was filed, the company has always used its own janitors for cleaning and maintenance. Because of operational requirements, most of this work is performed on the third shift. About 16 janitors are required to maintain the Central City facilities. GMFC has always had problems with absences among its janitors, but since the last contract was signed, the absence rate has increased from an average of about 2.5 percent each week to 20 percent. Because of this increase, housekeeping lagged, and GMFC officials were starting to worry about fire code violations resulting from the superficial cleaning. Management considered discharging those who were chronically absent but found on investigation that absences seemed to rotate systematically among members of the crew, as if they were planned.
As a result of management's investigation, Carolyn Foster contacted Matt Duff, Local 384 president, and asked him to enforce the contract and get the janitors' absence rate down. She told Duff that the company considered the action the equivalent of a slowdown, and that strong action would be taken if absence rates were not reduced. Duff protested, saying there was not concerted activity behind the absences.
When the high rate and rotating pattern persisted, the company discharged the janitors and subcontracted their work to Dependa-Kleen, a full-time janitorial service. To the company's pleasure, Dependa-Kleen was able to take over the entire operation at a lower cost than the in-house operation had incurred before the absence problem.
On behalf of the janitors, Duff filed a grievance arguing the discharges violated Section 4.02 of the contract. He also filed a ULP charge with the NLRB, claiming the company violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Taft-Hartley Act through its unilateral action in subcontracting the work without consulting or bargaining with the union.
The company argued it was justified in replacing the janitors because their systematic absences were a violation of the contract's nostrike or slowdown clause (Section 9.05). The company argued it was entitled to replace the participants consistent with the management rights clause in Section 4.02.
Assume the testimony at the hearing does not seriously challenge the evidence management has gathered on the increase in absences among the janitors. In this case, decide the following:
Would you find the grievance arbitrable given the ULP charge filed by the union?
Assuming you find the grievance arbitrable, frame an award and justify it.
About six months after the new GMFC-Local 384 contract was ratified, four grievances were sent to arbitration by the union. The company and the union agreed that all four grievances would be heard on separate dates by the same arbitrator. Your name was on the panel the FMCS sent to the parties, and they selected you to arbitrate the grievances. You agreed and have heard all four grievances over the past three days. Now you have to prepare your awards.
CASE 2
Until the point at which the present grievance was filed, the company has always used its own janitors for cleaning and maintenance. Because of operational requirements, most of this work is performed on the third shift. About 16 janitors are required to maintain the Central City facilities. GMFC has always had problems with absences among its janitors, but since the last contract was signed, the absence rate has increased from an average of about 2.5 percent each week to 20 percent. Because of this increase, housekeeping lagged, and GMFC officials were starting to worry about fire code violations resulting from the superficial cleaning. Management considered discharging those who were chronically absent but found on investigation that absences seemed to rotate systematically among members of the crew, as if they were planned.
As a result of management's investigation, Carolyn Foster contacted Matt Duff, Local 384 president, and asked him to enforce the contract and get the janitors' absence rate down. She told Duff that the company considered the action the equivalent of a slowdown, and that strong action would be taken if absence rates were not reduced. Duff protested, saying there was not concerted activity behind the absences.
When the high rate and rotating pattern persisted, the company discharged the janitors and subcontracted their work to Dependa-Kleen, a full-time janitorial service. To the company's pleasure, Dependa-Kleen was able to take over the entire operation at a lower cost than the in-house operation had incurred before the absence problem.
On behalf of the janitors, Duff filed a grievance arguing the discharges violated Section 4.02 of the contract. He also filed a ULP charge with the NLRB, claiming the company violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Taft-Hartley Act through its unilateral action in subcontracting the work without consulting or bargaining with the union.
The company argued it was justified in replacing the janitors because their systematic absences were a violation of the contract's nostrike or slowdown clause (Section 9.05). The company argued it was entitled to replace the participants consistent with the management rights clause in Section 4.02.
Assume the testimony at the hearing does not seriously challenge the evidence management has gathered on the increase in absences among the janitors. In this case, decide the following:
Would you find the grievance arbitrable given the ULP charge filed by the union?
Assuming you find the grievance arbitrable, frame an award and justify it.
Case summary:
Mr. Y is on a panel of this case as an arbitrator. In the case, the company discharged all the janitors owing to the persistent absence of the employees from their duties. The way the employees remained absent showed that they have planned their absenteeism giving every employee some or the other day leave from the office. Despite of several warnings and convincing from the management's side, the employees persisted and continued with their efforts. This led the management to discharge them all from the company. Over this, the supervisor of the janitors filed a complaint with the industrial relations department to terminate their discharge. After a long negotiation, this compliant went for arbitration.
Solution:
1. The issue in this case is not capable of getting arbitrated. This is because the issue discussed is a violation of discipline from the employee's side. The management gave proper opportunities to the employees to correct their mistakes but the employees failed to make the necessary changes and continued with their absenteeism. This made the management to terminate the employees which is completely justifiable.
2. If the issue is find to be arbitrable by Mr. Y then the award of this issue will go in the favor of the management and company because of the employee's mistake. The management possess a complete right in terminating an employee who has violated discipline and has been taking leaves in an in appropriate manner.
Mr. Y is on a panel of this case as an arbitrator. In the case, the company discharged all the janitors owing to the persistent absence of the employees from their duties. The way the employees remained absent showed that they have planned their absenteeism giving every employee some or the other day leave from the office. Despite of several warnings and convincing from the management's side, the employees persisted and continued with their efforts. This led the management to discharge them all from the company. Over this, the supervisor of the janitors filed a complaint with the industrial relations department to terminate their discharge. After a long negotiation, this compliant went for arbitration.
Solution:
1. The issue in this case is not capable of getting arbitrated. This is because the issue discussed is a violation of discipline from the employee's side. The management gave proper opportunities to the employees to correct their mistakes but the employees failed to make the necessary changes and continued with their absenteeism. This made the management to terminate the employees which is completely justifiable.
2. If the issue is find to be arbitrable by Mr. Y then the award of this issue will go in the favor of the management and company because of the employee's mistake. The management possess a complete right in terminating an employee who has violated discipline and has been taking leaves in an in appropriate manner.
4
What possible drawbacks do you see associated with the expansion of expedited arbitration?
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 9 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
5
Cases
About six months after the new GMFC-Local 384 contract was ratified, four grievances were sent to arbitration by the union. The company and the union agreed that all four grievances would be heard on separate dates by the same arbitrator. Your name was on the panel the FMCS sent to the parties, and they selected you to arbitrate the grievances. You agreed and have heard all four grievances over the past three days. Now you have to prepare your awards.
CASE 3
The maintenance electricians in the unit are assigned to repair jobs around the Central City facilities shortly after they report to work at their central shop at the beginning of a shift. Before ratification of the most recent contract, electricians traditionally returned to the shop for their afternoon coffee breaks. All of the electricians left their work so that they would arrive at the shop at the beginning of the break, and they left the shop at the end of the break to return to work.
The electrical shop supervisor, Ken Bates, issued a new policy after the new contract was approved, stating the break would commence once work stopped at the assigned location and end when work was restarted. This policy change meant some electricians would have insufficient time to return to the shop for their breaks.
The union filed a grievance alleging that the company had revoked a prevailing practice that had the effect of a contract term. It also argued it had not been consulted, as Article 12.03 of the contract required. The company denied the grievance, citing the language in Section 12.02.
Should the grievance be sustained?
If it should be sustained, what is your reasoning and what should the award be? If it should be denied, what is the basis for the denial?
About six months after the new GMFC-Local 384 contract was ratified, four grievances were sent to arbitration by the union. The company and the union agreed that all four grievances would be heard on separate dates by the same arbitrator. Your name was on the panel the FMCS sent to the parties, and they selected you to arbitrate the grievances. You agreed and have heard all four grievances over the past three days. Now you have to prepare your awards.
CASE 3
The maintenance electricians in the unit are assigned to repair jobs around the Central City facilities shortly after they report to work at their central shop at the beginning of a shift. Before ratification of the most recent contract, electricians traditionally returned to the shop for their afternoon coffee breaks. All of the electricians left their work so that they would arrive at the shop at the beginning of the break, and they left the shop at the end of the break to return to work.
The electrical shop supervisor, Ken Bates, issued a new policy after the new contract was approved, stating the break would commence once work stopped at the assigned location and end when work was restarted. This policy change meant some electricians would have insufficient time to return to the shop for their breaks.
The union filed a grievance alleging that the company had revoked a prevailing practice that had the effect of a contract term. It also argued it had not been consulted, as Article 12.03 of the contract required. The company denied the grievance, citing the language in Section 12.02.
Should the grievance be sustained?
If it should be sustained, what is your reasoning and what should the award be? If it should be denied, what is the basis for the denial?
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 9 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
6
What duty, if any, does an arbitrator have to the parties to see that both are competently represented?
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 9 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
7
Cases
About six months after the new GMFC-Local 384 contract was ratified, four grievances were sent to arbitration by the union. The company and the union agreed that all four grievances would be heard on separate dates by the same arbitrator. Your name was on the panel the FMCS sent to the parties, and they selected you to arbitrate the grievances. You agreed and have heard all four grievances over the past three days. Now you have to prepare your awards.
CASE 4
One Sunday last month, three level 3 skilled production workers, Bryce Coffman, Paul Foyle, and Dennis Mitchell, were arrested by the county sheriff on a Class C felony charge of possessing destructive explosive material. Newspaper accounts of the arrest indicated that Coffman, Foyle, and Mitchell were members
of the Term Limiters, a local militia having about 20 members. The article said that on weekends the members got together to inform themselves about the latest state and federal political activity and to conduct militarystyle commando drills. They were said to be preparing to defend themselves for possible future situations in which a government might institute martial law and eliminate civil liberties. The newspaper identified the names, addresses, and employers of all 20 members.
In addition to drilling, the group also frequently wrote to local newspapers identifying various public office holders whose activities the group felt threatened their civil liberties and militia activities and suggested that "their time was coming."
At their arraignment on Monday, all three pleaded not guilty to the charge. As a condition for releasing them pending a trial, the judge ordered that they have no communication with any member of the militia and to post $5,000 personal recognizance bonds, which they did, whereupon they were released.
Late Sunday, the sheriff had called Charles Van Beek, the GMFC plant manager, to inform him about the arrests and the charges. On Monday several employees contacted HR department staff members indicating that they felt they were in danger with having "deranged militia members" in the plant. They also said that it reflected badly on the company. At the health club where he worked out after work, a couple of other plant managers whom he knew chided him about whether he was running a boot camp for terrorists out at his plant. Given all of this, Van Beek decided that the trio should be terminated on the grounds of their unexcused absence on Monday and the damage their activities had caused to the reputation of the company.
On Tuesday, they reported for work and were immediately informed by their supervisor that consistent with the powers granted in the management rights clause (Article 4.02), they were being terminated for cause based on Monday's absence and the harm done to the company's reputation by having their names associated with the company in the newspaper story (which had gotten statewide attention). They demanded union representation and filed a grievance demanding reinstatement and lost wages. They were then escorted out of the plant by security guards.
The union claimed the company had no right to discipline the three since their off-duty activities had nothing to do with their jobs and was not the company's business anyway. The company stated that there was no way it would reinstate the trio. Both agreed, however, that the union could immediately invoke its right to arbitrate the grievance.
Prepare a case for sustaining or overturning the grievance. What evidence would be important to buttress your case?
Does the fact that this involves off-duty activities make any difference?
If you were the arbitrator, what additional information would you want to have presented before rendering a decision? Based on the information in the case and what you have read, would you sustain, modify, or overturn the punishment?
About six months after the new GMFC-Local 384 contract was ratified, four grievances were sent to arbitration by the union. The company and the union agreed that all four grievances would be heard on separate dates by the same arbitrator. Your name was on the panel the FMCS sent to the parties, and they selected you to arbitrate the grievances. You agreed and have heard all four grievances over the past three days. Now you have to prepare your awards.
CASE 4
One Sunday last month, three level 3 skilled production workers, Bryce Coffman, Paul Foyle, and Dennis Mitchell, were arrested by the county sheriff on a Class C felony charge of possessing destructive explosive material. Newspaper accounts of the arrest indicated that Coffman, Foyle, and Mitchell were members
of the Term Limiters, a local militia having about 20 members. The article said that on weekends the members got together to inform themselves about the latest state and federal political activity and to conduct militarystyle commando drills. They were said to be preparing to defend themselves for possible future situations in which a government might institute martial law and eliminate civil liberties. The newspaper identified the names, addresses, and employers of all 20 members.
In addition to drilling, the group also frequently wrote to local newspapers identifying various public office holders whose activities the group felt threatened their civil liberties and militia activities and suggested that "their time was coming."
At their arraignment on Monday, all three pleaded not guilty to the charge. As a condition for releasing them pending a trial, the judge ordered that they have no communication with any member of the militia and to post $5,000 personal recognizance bonds, which they did, whereupon they were released.
Late Sunday, the sheriff had called Charles Van Beek, the GMFC plant manager, to inform him about the arrests and the charges. On Monday several employees contacted HR department staff members indicating that they felt they were in danger with having "deranged militia members" in the plant. They also said that it reflected badly on the company. At the health club where he worked out after work, a couple of other plant managers whom he knew chided him about whether he was running a boot camp for terrorists out at his plant. Given all of this, Van Beek decided that the trio should be terminated on the grounds of their unexcused absence on Monday and the damage their activities had caused to the reputation of the company.
On Tuesday, they reported for work and were immediately informed by their supervisor that consistent with the powers granted in the management rights clause (Article 4.02), they were being terminated for cause based on Monday's absence and the harm done to the company's reputation by having their names associated with the company in the newspaper story (which had gotten statewide attention). They demanded union representation and filed a grievance demanding reinstatement and lost wages. They were then escorted out of the plant by security guards.
The union claimed the company had no right to discipline the three since their off-duty activities had nothing to do with their jobs and was not the company's business anyway. The company stated that there was no way it would reinstate the trio. Both agreed, however, that the union could immediately invoke its right to arbitrate the grievance.
Prepare a case for sustaining or overturning the grievance. What evidence would be important to buttress your case?
Does the fact that this involves off-duty activities make any difference?
If you were the arbitrator, what additional information would you want to have presented before rendering a decision? Based on the information in the case and what you have read, would you sustain, modify, or overturn the punishment?
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 9 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
8
Give arguments for and against the greater involvement of attorneys in arbitration, as both advocates and umpires.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 9 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
9
Forecast what you see as the future of labor arbitration in terms of the expansion or contraction of issues within its jurisdictions and the finality of its decisions.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 9 flashcards in this deck.
Unlock Deck
k this deck
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 9 flashcards in this deck.
