grievance case
liam1998
Case_8_Agradeanalysis2.docx( Case 8: Discharge for Fraud ) ( 3 )
Labor Management Relations
Case 8
Discharge for Fraud
The Issue
The issue at hand is whether the grievant, Mr. Thomas Sax, was discharged for cause and if not what the solution should be.
Timeline of Events
November 10, 2002 Sax Injured on the job
November 11, 2002 Sax did not work
November 13, 2002 Sax reported to Dr. Rooney
November 11, 14, 15, and 16 Sax received disability pay
November 16, 2002 Sax cleared to return to work
November 24, 2002 Sax called in sick
December 9, 2002 Sax called in sick
December 16, 2002 Sax reinjured on the job
December 17 and 18 Sax received disability pay
December 18, 2002 Sax telephone in to Company dispensary
December 22, 2002 Sax cleared to return to work but called in sick
January 12, 2002 Sax discharged
Applicable Contract Provisions
The following provisions are relevant to this case:
ARTICLE 9
Leave of Absence
SECTION 5. SICK LEAVE
1. All employees are eligible for seven (7) days fully paid non-authenticated sick leave each contract year.
Present Benefits
(5) If an employee is disabled by a compensable accident, he or she will be paid eight (8) hours per day at the rate shown in Schedule A hereof during his or her disability up to the eight (8th) regular working day and thereafter such further amounts in addition to the compensation provided by the law as the Company in its discretion deems proper.
Positions
Management
It is the opinion of the Company that Mr. Sax intentionally defrauded the Company it property (wages). They hold that Mr. Sax deliberately ignored Dr. Rooney’s instructions for rest, and instead went to work at Hunterdon. The Company claims a loss on wages paid and work hours not performed by Mr. Sax due to the fraudulent disability claim, which is cause for discharge, additionally they find that Mr. Sax deceived the Company in regard to his sick days and therefore this is additional cause for discharge.
Union
It is the opinion of the Union that Mr. Sax did nothing wrong. The Union states that the sick leave provision does not require the employee to actually be sick and the intention of the wording was intentional so as to allow employees to use these days for personal days if needed. The Union additionally hold that since the Company did not demonstrate proof that Mr. Sax was working the same kind of employment at Hunterdon or even the same shifts (with the exception of one) that the disability claim was valid and a Company physician diagnosed and recommended it. The Union also states that collection of compensation benefits while working elsewhere in an unrelated type job is allowed and not deceptive. They want Mr. Sax reinstated with back pay and benefits.
Proposed Solution of Arbitrator
The proposed solutions of this case are in favor of the Company, finding Mr. Sax’s discharge justifiably for cause OR a finding in favor of the Union which would reinstate Mr. Sax with back pay and full benefits restored.
Final Decision
The final binding decision is for the Union reinstating the grievant, Mr. Thomas Sax, with back pay and full benefits restored.
Justification for this ruling is as follows:
The provisions regarding sick pay are defined as being non-authenticated and, as per multiple testimonies, these were intentional to allow sick days to be used for personal days. Whether Mr. Sax was honest or not about his health is irrelevant to the case as it pertains to sick leave.
Concerning the disability compensation the state allows employees to collect compensation while working elsewhere in an unrelated job type and this circumstance fits that description. The Company physician diagnosed Mr. Sax and found him to be injured, I see no evidence that he faked or exaggerated his injuries. The Company additionally violated state statutes for discharging an employee for claiming workmen’s compensation benefits.
