Labor Relations 12th Edition by John Fossum

Exercise 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?