Grievance Case Study Assignment Summer 2016

...

At the hotel, the grievors got a table near the shuffleboard, ordered beer and went to the counter to buy a sandwich. Later, according to his statement, Cummings went back to the counter to buy another sandwich. Between his two trips to the counter, four management employees arrived for lunch and seated themselves some distance away from the grievors. Cummings left the lunch counter and went over to the booth where the management people were seated. They were Richards, department manager, scheduling; Miner, department manager, stock cutting; Johnston, time study engineer, and Monroe, safety and security manager. Cummings addressed Richardson as follows:

"Hi creep! Where's my f__ telegram?" Cummings stated that he thought Richardson would understand this statement as a private joke. However, Richardson apparently didn't agree. Further discussion between Cummings and the group became an argument between Richardson, Miner and Cummings. Shortly after the argument began, the three other grievors moved from the table where they had been sitting, to a table close to the argument.

Nothing was said between them and the management group. However, shortly after they moved, Johnston, the time study engineer, went over to their table and had a conversation with them unrelated to the argument. Eventually the bar manager came and told Cummings to sit down and lower his voice. He apparently sat down but continued to argue. The argument centred around the method of scheduling the work in the plant which Cummings claimed cut his incentive earnings. The argument continued until the bar manager asked Cummings to leave. Cummings requested the bar manager to ask the people in the booth to leave as well, but he refused. Cummings then left.

The management group discussed calling the police for protection because of Cummings' attitude, but decided against it. Both groups got up to leave. The management group moved toward the door.

Johnston left the Union group to join them. Johnston said that at that time he did not anticipate any further trouble.

As they walked out, Johnston first, followed by Richardson, Miner, and Monroe, they were followed by three of the grievors. One of the grievors, Dalton, testified that a scuffle ensued when Scott, one of the grievors, apparently tripped over the doorstep and fell forward brushing against Richardson, the department manager scheduling. Immediately afterwards, Miner, the department manager, stock cutting, seized Scott and pushed him up against the outer wall of the building According to his statement, Cummings, who had been waiting outside for transportation, saw what was happening. C, Anticipating an assault on Scott's person, he ran over and threw himself between Miner and Scott and in the process attempted to forestall Richardson from attacking Scott.

On the other hand, Richardson and Miner stated that it was Scott who seized Richardson and held him up against the wall as Cummings who had been standing beside a parked car just outside, came towards the group as they were leaving the tavern. Each of them felt Scott was trying to set up Richardson for an assault by Cummings.

The conflicts of evidence became even more pronounced as each of the witnesses gave his version of the events which apparently resulted in each being struck once or twice, not clearly by whom. There was considerable punching and shoving, resulting among other things in Richardson being struck several times, his glasses being knocked off, and a cut opened on his nose.

The bar manager stated that he came out and interpreted the situation as wrestling around in a halfhearted manner between Cummings and Richardson. He said that he told them to stop and take the company's business back to the company. Cummings continued to swear at Richardson and threaten some future action. Monroe stayed behind after Richardson, Miner, and Johnston left and discussed the matter with the grievors without further incident.

Later the grievors were advised not to report for work on their next shift and subsequently were discharged.

Company Argument

The company argued that the actions of the grievors were such that they were directly related to the company, involving altercations between the grievors and the management personnel in regard to company business. Therefore discharge was warranted for protection of other employees, the company and the proper carrying on of its business.

Cummings initiated the action that led to the argument and to the scuffle. If he had had cause for a grievance, he should have used the grievance procedure.

His actions and the actions of the others were a verbal and physical assault on management representatives and, further, in regard to matters relating to management.

There is no need to, and management cannot tolerate such action, and it is essential that the arbitration board uphold the discharge.

Union Argument

The union argued that under all of the circumstances of the case the incident was not sufficiently serious to warrant discharge. The misconduct must be viewed .in relation to the nature of the employment, the persons, and the situation involved, all within the context of the material facts. All of the grievors had good work records. Cummings is considered by management to be a skilled competent employee with only a minor reprimand on his record. The others have no disciplinary records. The conduct of the grievors did not harm the reputation of the company. The action of the grievors was not such as to seriously impair employer-employee relationships. None of the grievors was under the direct supervision of the management personnel involved.

...