Part C – Case Analysis - (This is worth 50% of the test score.) Please double-sp

Question

Part C – Case Analysis - (This is worth 50% of the test score.) Please double-space your response. Limit your response to a maximum of one and a half concisely written, single-spaced pages. Please begin your response here; do not start a new page. This section needs to be processed through Turnitin. Submit only this section to avoid inflating your score.

Contract Provisions Article III – Management Rights

The Company also has the right to establish and require employees to observe company rules and regulations, lay off or relieve employees from duties, to maintain order, and to suspend, demote, discipline, and discharge employees for just cause in line with this Agreement.

First Violation of These Rules = Discharge

1. Theft or misappropriation of any property or money of employees or the Company.

Facts of the Case

The grievant reported to work more than an hour after commencement of his shift. He informed his supervisor that he had stopped by the residence of a friend the night before to watch a basketball game and had overslept, making him late for work. About noon that day, the supervisor was leaving for lunch when he noticed an orange ladder in the back of the grievant’s pickup truck that appeared to be a company ladder. He reported this to the human resources manager, and they decided to investigate. They went to the grievant’s truck and confirmed that, indeed, it was a company-labeled ladder. They checked with the guard station to determine whether the grievant had obtained a property removal authorization pass granting him permission to take the ladder off company premises. The guards confirmed that the grievant had not presented them with any such pass. The union vice president was summoned to the scene and was told they were concerned that the grievant might be planning to steal the ladder. The union vice president suggested that they should wait and see whether the grievant actually left the company’s premises with the ladder before reaching any conclusions.

The grievant did, in fact, leave with the ladder at approximately 3:30 p.m. The grievant does not dispute the fact that he had never obtained a signed authorization pass to remove the ladder from the facility. The grievant returned the ladder to the company facility at 5:40 p.m. that same day. It was discovered in later discussions that the grievant had originally taken this ladder, without proper written authorization, approximately four months earlier. The grievant said he intended to return it sooner, but it was stored at his home and he was prevented from going on that property due to a court order connected to divorce proceedings. The grievant indicated that his supervisor had given him verbal permission to take the ladder. Witnesses testified that it was common practice for employees to borrow articles from the company merely by obtaining a supervisor’s verbal permission. The grievant’s supervisor acknowledged that he did tell the grievant he could take the ladder, but only if he got an authorization slip. The company said the grievant knew the policy because he had obtained written permission several times previously.

Unconvinced by the grievant’s explanations, the company ultimately came to the conclusion that the grievant intended to steal the ladder and he was terminated. Subsequently, in light of the grievant’s 24 years of service with the company, the termination was changed to a six-month suspension without pay which amounted to approximately $40,000. The grievant appealed.

Analysis

As the arbitrator, what would you decide and why?

Explanation / Answer

As an arbitrator I found that grievant intentional was not to stole the ladder. His intention was to use the ladder for his personal use at his home. As an Arbitrator I also found in his investigation that generally worker take the verbal permission from the supervisor to take the instruments for his personal use but we cannot blame to the supervisor because supervisor permission is applicable only along with the authorization gate pass. The grievant has given 24 years of his services to the company, so before taking any decision this thing should be considered. According to me one chance should be given to the grievant along with the warning.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.