Question

This was an actual case and the arbitrator ruled in the company's favor as indicated below.   Note that, although an arbitration proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature, the arbitrator has a lot of discretionary authority in making decisions.  When reading the arbitrator's decision, ask yourself, would you want the grievant to inspect a gas leak at your home?    

In reviewing the totality of the situation, the arbitrator believed discharge was appropriate in this case.  Management was correct in using its "Management Rights" clause to dismiss the grievant.  His negligence could have caused harm to customers and legal problems galore for the company.   As you prepare for the final exam, remember the "practical" approach used in this scenario.

 

EXERCISE: LABOR EXERCISE

OBJECTIVES: 

1. To familiarize students with the arbitration process.

2. To give students practice in presenting and defending a case before others.

3. To examine issues associated with interpretation of the conditions of a contract and the application of just cause in termination.       

                                                                              ARBITRATOR’S DECISION

 

The arbitrator decided that there was just cause for the company to discharge grievant.  The arbitrator, therefore, denied the grievance and ordered that the grievance be dismissed.  The arbitrator had two questions to answer:  (1) Was this a case of poor job performance or negligence of duty?  and (2) Was the discharge penalty appropriate?  In addressing the first question, the arbitrator noted that poor performance is usually associated with a lack of skills or intelligence.  The grievant had been an employee of the company for nearly four years and had nearly five years of experience as a service technician.  The grievant did not lack the requisite skills or innate ability to do the job in the opinion of the arbitrator.  The arbitrator also noted the serious nature of the situation that the grievant left the customer in as a result of not following prescribed procedures.  With respect to the appropriate nature of the penalty, the arbitrator noted that no extenuating or mitigating circumstances were brought to his attention which might justify imposition of a lesser penalty. The arbitrator also noted the grievant’s less than exemplary work record and that throughout his testimony, grievant’s penchant for placing blame on others without taking responsibility for his own errors.  The grievance was denied and the termination stands.