1. United Food & Commercial Workers District Union ARBITRATION BRIEF OF
Local No. 442 GOLD KIST, INC.
Petitioner,
vs.
Gold Kist, Inc.
Respondent.
SUMMARY OF GOLD KIST, INC.’S DECISION
On February 28th of 2016, Rose Ross was terminated from her position as a first-shift saw
operator with Gold Kist, Inc. of the Northwest Washington Poultry Division located in Yakima,
WA for gross safety violation. Ross was discharged from her position due to her failure to
comply with the mandatory safety rules and policies, on multiple occasions, instated to protect
the employee and other employees. On February 28th of 2016, supervisor Boswell witnessed
Ross fail to wear the required steel mesh glove on her left hand while operating the hazardous
machinery. Not only did she fail to wear her proper safety equipment on her left hand, she failed
to provide 100% of her concentration to this position by having her ungloved, left hand in her
mouth while operating the dangerous machinery solely with her gloved, right hand. This was her
third violation of the mandatory safety rules. In consequence, Boswell discharged Ross in the
presence of shop steward, Amanda Dee, for blatant negligence of the company’s safety
requirements.
ISSUE(S) PRESENTED:
1) Did the company have just cause under the labor agreement to terminate Rose Ross?
2) Should Ross be granted reinstatement to her position as a first-shift saw operator with
back pay?

2. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During her employment, it was Ross’ duty to obtain poultry from the line and guide it through a
9.5in saw—sharp enough to cut through flesh and bone—with a blade revolving at 1725
revolutions per minute. Lester Boswell and Arno Hammett—both supervisors—demonstrated the
dangerousness of the saw job, reinforcing that this position requires 100% concentration and the
use of steel mesh gloves, at all times, to prevent irreparable damage to the operator as well as
others employees. Failure to comply with this rule is a serious offense. During Ross’
employment, she constituted a gross safety violation for failure to wear the required steel mesh
gloves on three separate occasions—resulting in the appropriate grounds for termination which
took place on February 28th of 2016.
The company has cause in terminating Ross for supporting reasons that follow:
1. Foremost, Ross did not comply with the safety rules required for fulfilling the duties of
her job by failing to wear the mandatory steel mesh gloves on three separate occasions
while operating machinery.
a. The first incident resulted in an oral warning issued Aug. 23, 2010
b. The second incident resulted in a written warning issued Oct. 29, 2012
c. The final disciplinary action was the discharge issued Feb. 28, 2016
2. Secondly, it is stated in Gold Kist, Inc.’s work rules, “disregard of safety rules that
endanger the safety of employee or other employees [can result in discipline or
discharge]” Correspondingly, the company must comply with all regulations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is enforced by federal law
requiring a safe workplace.

3. 3. Thirdly, Ross revealed her awareness of the company’s safety requirement and admitted
to not wearing her left glove while machinery was being operated.
4. Fourthly, safety rules have been consistently enforced and can be proven through the
warnings, suspensions, and termination of other employees who have failed to comply.
5. Furthermore, the Company cites Arbitrator Alexandra B. Porter of Seattle Steel Co.,
where she decided that, “employees may not exercise individual discretion regarding the
need to comply with safety rules.”
LEGAL ISSUES:
Under Article 1: Management Rights, Section 1 notes that:
“The management of the company and its operations, and the direction of its
working force, including the right to hire, promote, suspend, or discharge
employees for just cause and maintenance of efficiency are vested exclusively in
the Company. The Company may, in its judgement…maintain discipline, and
enact reasonable Company policies and plant rules in regulations, which are not in
conflict with the provisions of this Agreement or legal rights of the employees.”
WITNESSES:
1. Alexandra B. Porter: Porter, a permanent arbitrator for the Seattle Steele Co., testified on
her expertise based off previous cases of similar circumstances that, “employees may not
exercise individual discretion regarding the need to comply with safety rules.”
2. Lester Boswell: The shop supervisor, Lester Boswell, was then called to the stand to
provide insight as to what happened on February 28, 2016 regarding the termination of

4. Ross. Boswell briefed the room on the severity of Ross’ gross safety violation. He
confirmed that the accumulation of Ross’ safety violations constituted a just decision in
terminating Ross on the spot.
3. Safety Manager: The safety manager testified that wearing both steel mesh gloves were
mandatory to perform the functions of the job safely and effectively. The safety manager
further testified that Ross’ position required full attention to the duties, and if there was
any type of distraction, it could easily jeopardize the safety of bystanders in addition to
the employee operating the hazardous machinery. Furthermore, the safety manager
confirmed that all emergency stop-buttons for the conveyor belt, as well as buzzers
purposed to alert employees on the line, were inspected before first-shift and found to be
fully functioning on the day of Ross’ termination.
4. Human Resources Manager: Lastly, the HR Manager explained Ross’ position within the
company, confirmed the duration of her employment at Gold Kist Inc., and disclosed her
previous violations on record. Upon cross-examination, the HR Manager confirmed that
Gold Kist Inc. must comply with all regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration that are enforced under federal law, and that management maintains rights
under the relevant contractual provision, Article 1 Section 1—the Management’s Rights
clause.
CONCLUSION
The grievance should not be upheld. The Company had the contractual rights to formulate and
enforce safety policies and rules designed to protect all employees. Management used its best
judgement and had ample just cause in the decision of terminating Ross for the failure to comply

5. with Company policies and plant rules in regulation—ultimately jeopardizing the safety of
herself, fellow employees, and the workplace. Management requests that the arbitrator does not
disturb Managements decision to terminate Rose Ross, and Management requests that the
arbitrator does not award Rose Ross with reinstatement to her duties in conjunction with back
pay.
ATTACHMENTS:
Labor Agreement:
Article 1 Management Rights, Section 1.
The rights of management shall be limited only to the extent necessary to carry out the
terms and conditions set out in this agreement. The management of the Company and its
operations, and the direction of its working force, including the right to hire, promote,
suspend, or discharge employees for just cause and the maintenance of efficiency are
vested exclusively in the Company. The Company may, in its judgement, increase or
decrease operations, remove or install machinery or appliances, determine work
processes and procedures, maintain discipline, and enact reasonable Company Policies
and plant rules and regulations, which are not in conflict with the provisions of this
Agreement or legal rights of employees.
Dated: 11/28/16
Signature: Serina Robnett