1. IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN
UNION: United Brotherhood of Carpenters,
Local No. 2077
COMPANY: Tacot Corporation, Yakima, WA
ARBITRATOR: Serina Robnett
DATE OF AWARD: November 17, 2016
HEARING SITE: Central Washington University
HEARING DATE: November 8, 2016
REPRESENTINGTHE EMPLOYER: Supervisor
Willis Hussmann
HR Manager
REPRESENTINGTHE UNION: Business Agent
Shop Steward
Henry Porter

2. BACKGROUND OF CASE
Tacot Corporation, a nationwide operated facility out of Yakima, WA, announced its
layoff plan on April 22nd of 2016. Tacot Corporation decided to suspend all production
operations, resulting in the layoff of all bargaining unit employees. The layoff was short, lasting
about 3-4 weeks. Prior to the layoff period, Willis Hussmann, an hourly rated employee who
belonged to the bargaining unit affected by the layoff, had undergone nearly a year of training to
assume a supervisory position at some point in the future. During Hussmann’s employment prior
to the layoff, he performed bargaining unit duties part-time and trained part-time for a
supervisory role. This training arrangement was not objected by Hussmann’s union. When
Hussmann began supervisory training, he sent an email on February 22, 2016 to the shop steward
requesting to be removed from the seniority roster; it was planned that he would assume a
supervisory position in the future. The shop steward maintained that the email was never sent,
but the HR manager confirmed that they had received the email. Thus, Hussmann remained on
the bargaining unit seniority roster during the year prior to the layoff, during the layoff, and
when the union filed the grievance on May 27 of 2016. Furthermore, the shop steward upheld
that they received notification of upcoming layoffs, but had never received an email pertaining to
Hussmann’s removal off the seniority list.
During the layoff period, management determined that additional supervisory personnel
was needed to prepare for resuming production. In result of this, management recalled Hussmann
to assume a supervisory position—for he had completed the lot of his training for this role and
was needed to assist in making the plant ready for the recall of other workers and for production
to begin again.

3. In the grievance that was filed by the union, it charged the employer (Tacot
Corporation—The Yakima facility) for violating Article XVII by rehiring Willis Hussmann, a
less senior employee, before rehiring Henry Porter, an employee who had much more seniority
than Hussmann.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES AND FACTS
Did Tacot Corporation improperly recall Willis Hussmann to work and deny Henry Porter
employment and pay for 17 days? If so, what should the remedy be?
Hussmann—a 4-year employee—was called back to work to assume a supervisory position 17
days prior to Porter—a 30-year employee with significantly more seniority than Hussmann.
Hussmann did not supervise any employees upon his recall; Hussmann assisted in preparing the
plant to recall the layoffs and restart production operations.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF CBA
Article XVII (Layoffs)
Layoffs will start with the last employee hired plant wide and proceed, with the exception
of Chief Steward previously mentioned, by date of hire; the inverse will be applied on
rehire. Any exceptions to this seniority procedure will be mutually agreed to by the
company and the union. New employees shall not be hired until all layoffs are recalled.
Article XVIII (Management Rights)
All rights are reserve to management except those expressly limited by the collective
bargaining contract.

4. SUMMARY OF UNION AND MANAGEMENT POSITIONS
Union
The union believes that the company violated the rights of Henry Porter by recalling
Hussmann, an employee of lesser seniority, back to work before Porter. Hussmann had not been
removed from the seniority list and assumed a position on the seniority roster far below that of
Porter. The union maintains that the layoff and recall language of the contract was clear and
unambiguous. Also, the union had not agreed to any departure language in Article XVII. In result
of this, the union requested that the company award Porter with 17 days of back pay that was not
to be reduced by the amount of his unemployment
Management
The company maintains that it did not violate Article XVII of the collective bargaining
agreement by recalling Hussmann to work to assume a supervisory position while the other
employees were still on layoff. Management had been preparing Hussmann for approximately a
year to assume the role of a supervisor with no objection from the union. Knowing that
Hussmann would be qualified to serve in the capacity of a supervisor in the future, he had sent an
email to the shop steward requesting to be removed from the seniority list prior to the layoff.
Therefore, there was nothing preventing management from promoting Hussmann—formerly an
hourly rated employee—to a supervisory position upon recall. Hussmann’s recall into a
supervisory position helped shorten the layoff period for all employees by increasing
management’s ability to prepare for call back and full resumption of production. Although
Hussmann remained on the seniority roster, this was due to a technical error not at the fault of
management. The company maintains that the remedy sought by the union would cause punitive

5. damages and would be unjust to the company: the company requests that the arbitrator deny the
grievance.
ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS IN RELATION TO CONTRACT LANGUAGE
The union firmly proclaims that the company violated Article XVII of the collective
bargaining agreement by rehiring Hussmann, a less senior employee, 17 days prior to Porter, a
significantly more senior employee. The union believes that, because Hussmann remained on the
seniority roster, he should not have been rehired before Porter. Management upholds that they
did not violate Article XVII by rehiring Hussmann before Porter by recalling Hussmann to
assume a supervisory role that he had been sufficiently trained for. Under Article XVIII,
management maintains that there was nothing in the collective bargaining agreement preventing
management from promoting Hussmann to a supervisory role, which he was qualified for.
AWARD
The grievance is denied. Under Article XVIII, management upholds the right to promote
trained and qualified employees to supervisory positions, which is a long-standing practice of
management. As it was stated, there was nothing in the agreement preventing management from
awarding promotions. Management did not violate Article XVII, for the failure to remove
Hussmann off the seniority roster was not at the fault of management, and Hussmann had
requested to be removed off the seniority list prior to the layoff. It was to the knowledge of the
union—in which there was no objection—that Hussmann was being groomed to assume a
supervisory role in the future, and that prior to the layoff, Hussmann had approximately

6. completed his one year of sufficient training. Tacot Corporation does not owe Henry Porter 17
days back pay.