1. What do you believe to be the principal weakness of the company’s position in this case? Explain.
2. Did Grimes have the right to request that his fellow employee be present during his meeting with Lenz? Explain.
3. Does the concept of progressive discipline require an employer to precede a discharge with a written warning and then a suspension without pay? Explain.
4. Which witnesses do you believe provide the more credible testimony, those for the employer or those for the grievant? Explain.
5. If you were the arbitrator, what would be your decision in this case and on what information or principle of HRM would you base your decision? Explain.

When employees are questioned during an investigative hearing with management, it is reasonable to assume that they will provide the story that best supports their case. In some instances their statements will be based on their subjective perceptions and feelings. In other cases, they may lie in order to lessen or avoid possible disciplinary action. If the punishment received is later appealed through either a grievance/arbitration procedure or an alternative dispute resolution system, some third party must determine whether the discipline imposed was supported by the evidence presented during the hearing. Typically, much of the evidence is in the form of testimony presented by witnesses on behalf of the employer and the employee. Unfortunately there are often significant differences in the testimony presented by the witnesses for each side. In such situations it is up to the neutral third party to try to evaluate the credibility of the testimony in order to determine which witnesses to believe. This is the problem confronting the arbitrator in this case, although the situation is likely to surface in any employee appeals hearing.