CASE 2

(Chapter 9 from Labor Relations: Striking a Balance 6th edition should be used)

QUESTIONS

1. Assume the role of Tammy Pappas. How would you try to convince an arbitrator that the dismissal was legitimate?

2. Assume the role of Local 54's grievance committee chairperson. How would you try to convince an arbitrator that the dismissal violated the collective bargaining agreement?

3. As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why?

Andrew Warwick was born in rural central Pennsylvania and graduated from high school in the same town. He subsequently attended Lehigh University for two years and then transferred to the University of South Dakota. He graduated from South Dakota with a B.A. degree with a Psychology major and an economics minor. Warwick then attended the University of Maryland, where he received a master of arts degree. Warwick started working on a Ph.D. but decided that he was tired of school and wanted to work. Consequently, he moved back to Pennsylvania, where he was a substitute high school teacher and taught as an instructor at a local college. Much to his dismay, the pay was quite poor and he needed a higher-paying job.

On August 7, Warwick applied for a job at the nearby Gordon Metals plant. From some friends Warwick had learned that Gordon Metals' policy was not to hire people with a college education for blue-collar jobs (because management believed that college-educated individuals became bored faster in blue-collar jobs, which increased the cost of production). As part of the job application process, Warwick filled out a written job application. In the education section Warwick circled the number 12 next to the heading "Highest Grade Completed" and left the block pertaining to college blank. In the experience section of the application, Warwick did not mention his prior teaching experience. The company did not verify any of his answers. On November 22, Warwick was hired by Gordon Metals and commenced work as a utility person in the tube plating department working the third shift from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. After 30 days his wage was increased because he had successfully completed the probationary period for new employees.

The steel industry experienced a business slowdown, however, and Warwick was laid off in January. On February 3, he was recalled to work as a labor pool person in the foundry department. On February 9, he was recalled to his original position as a third shift utility person in the plating department. All these positions were part of a bargaining unit represented by the UAW.

Meanwhile, the collective bargaining agreement between the UAW of America Local 54 and Gordon Metals expired on February 18. The negotiators were unable to reach an agreement, and the union went out on strike. During the strike Warwick was actively involved in supporting the union and wrote several pamphlets. These pamphlets, distributed to striking workers, urged them to maintain solidarity so that the union would be successful in winning new contract gains for the bargaining unit.

Tammy Pappas, assistant director of human resources at the plant, noticed these pamphlets and heard rumors that Warwick was college-educated. Thus, Pappas initiated an investigation into Warwick's background-both his previous employment and his education. Warwick was the only employee for whom Pappas conducted such an investigation.

The strike ended at the end of March, and Warwick was recalled back to work on April 8 as a labor pool person in the foundry department (business was slow so there were no openings in the plating department). On May 17, Pappas, Local 54's grievance committee chairperson, and Warwick discussed Pappas's investigation and her findings about his previous education and work experience. Warwick was subsequently terminated for falsifying his employment application. After two additional meetings failed to resolve the dispute, the union filed a grievance, arguing that Gordon Metals fired Warwick without just cause. The union demanded that the company reinstate Warwick with full seniority, and all lost wages and other benefits spelled out in the agreement.

POTENTIALLY RELEVANT CONTRACT PROVISIONS

Article VIll. Suspension and Discharge.

Section 1. Procedure. Suspensions, discharges, and disciplinary actions shall be first discussed with the shop steward and/or grievance committee before being put into effect. Failure to discuss will result in rescinding any action taken.

Section 2. Differences. Any difference of opinion between the parties as to the facts and/or judgment shall result in a formal meeting between the parties and if not resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, it shall be referred to an impartial arbitrator for a final and binding decision.

...

Article XI. Seniority.

Section 1. Basis of Seniority. (a) Plant seniority is defined as the length of continuous service with the company and shall continue until terminated for reasons set forth under paragraph (b) of this section.

...

(b) Plant seniority shall be terminated for the following reasons:

1. Dismissal for cause .

...

(d) New employees shall be required to serve a probationary period of thirty (30) calendar days. Such probationary period may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) calendar days. During this time the company shall judge the fitness of such employees and will be free to discharge or lay off such employees without regard to seniority. After completion of their probationary period the employee's plant seniority shall start from the first day worked..

...

Article XIl

Section 1. Management Rights. (a) The right to hire and maintain order and efficiency is the sole responsibility of the management.

(b) The right to promote, and the right to discipline and discharge for just cause, are likewise the sole responsibility of the management.

POTENTIALLY RELEVANT PENNSYLVANIA LEGAL DEFINITION

Under Pennsylvania law deceit is interpreted to consist of a fraudulent misrepresentation of material facts in a business transaction that is calculated to induce reliance, and that actually causes reasonable and justifiable reliance, to the detriment of the reliant. Note: The arbitrator's authority is derived from the collective bargaining agreement, and his or her job is to interpret the agreement. The arbitrator's job is not to enforce legal statutes, but often an arbitrator looks to statutes, and their interpretation, to aid in the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.