Case study for Fundamentals of Labor Arbitration workshop

1. © scanza
1
DISCIPLINE & DISCHARGE IN ARBITRATION
Wayland Windows, Inc. vs. Local # 1145
BACKGROUND
Wayland Windows, Inc. (The Company) manufactures custom steel
windows, steel doors, and security windows. fire-rated windows, The Company
is signatory to a collective bargaining agreement Local # 1145 (The Union).
Tim Jackson (The Grievant) has been employed by the Company for
approximately eight years. At the time of his termination, Mr. Jackson held
the position of cleaner.
On November 14, 2013, the Grievant attended a group meeting that was
conducted by manufacturing supervisor Pete Murphy. According to witnesses,
as the meeting was nearing its end, a cell phone belonging to the Grievant
started to ring. Another employee, Fred Drummond, stated aloud, “That phone
ringtone sounds gay. Are you gay?” The Grievant reacted angrily and stated
that “he was tired of your shit from last night, then punched Mr. Drummond in
the face, knocking him to the ground.
Mr. Murphy ordered the Grievant to leave the building, stating “You are
done, get your stuff and get out of my building.” The following day the Grievant
called a plant manager Sal Leonardo who informed him that he had been

2. © scanza
2
terminated for fighting on the job. On November 17th, the Grievant was issued
a letter from Jake Ferris, Vice President / Works Manager confirming the
Company’s decision to terminate him.
On November 20th, the Union filed a grievance on behalf of Mr. Jackson.
The Union argued that the Company work rule regarding fighting had not been
consistently enforced and thus the decision to terminate the Grievant was not
for sufficient cause.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Position of the Company
The Grievant was discharged for just cause. His conduct violated
Company rules regarding fighting on the job. The Union is now trying to justify
the Grievant’ s violent behavior by alleging that he was the victim of
harassment by another employee, Fred Drummond. If his allegation was true,
the Grievant could have and should have come to management to complain
about the alleged harassment. He did not and is now using it as an excuse for
his behavior.
The Union contends that the Company has not been consistent in
administering discipline under the fighting rule. The Company acknowledges
that in a prior incident occurring in June, the plant manager made a mistake in
suspending and not terminating two employees for fighting. The Company

3. © scanza
3
later met with the Union steward to discuss the error and both parties agreed
that it would be unfair to impose discipline a second time to the employees
involved in the fighting incident. When another fighting incident occurred in
August involving another employee, the Company terminated him in
accordance with the rules. The Company respectfully requests that the
Grievance be denied, thus sending a message to the workforce that “violence
in the workplace is unacceptable for any reason and as an employee of
Wayland Windows, you are safe from violent acts at our facilities.”
Position of the Union
The Grievant was not discharged for just cause. The record evidence
demonstrates that the Company did not terminate two employees who were
involved in a fight five months before the Grievant was terminated for violating
the same work rule. The Company’s reference to terminating an employee in
August is not relevant as the employee in question was a probationary
employee and not a permanent full-time employee with the Company.
Testimony during the hearing established that another physical altercation
occurred during July, involving a shoving incident between two employees in
the Company locker room. The Company chose to describe it as a disruption,
not a fight, and neither employee was terminated.
Finally, the incident involving the Grievant and Fred Drummond occurred

4. © scanza
4
in the presence of Pete Murphy, Company supervisor. Had the supervisor
intervened immediately after Fred began harassing the Grievant, the incident
could have been prevented. Moreover, the Union disagrees with the
Company’s determination that Fred Drummond was not at fault for his role in
the incident. Mr. Drummond was not an innocent bystander but was guilty of
harassing and provoking the Grievant.
The Union respectfully requests that given the circumstances
surrounding the fighting incident and the Company’s lack of consistent
application of its rules, the Grievant should be reinstated with full back and
benefits.