1. As the labor relations representative for Tiger oil Mill, develop a case for
ID: 332402 • Letter: 1
Question
1. As the labor relations representative for Tiger oil Mill, develop a case for your contention that the discharge of Bob White was proper.
2. As the chief steward for Local 4417, 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? Explain your logic.
BACKGROUND Local 4417 was the authorized bargaining agent for all employees, except clerical, supervisory, and security em- ployees, at the Tiger Oil Mill in Mississippi. On January 5 an electric motor broke, causing the mill to shut down. shortly thereafter mill superintendent Frank Tempest assigned Bob White and Michael Johnson to clean the mill's cyclone. This assignment required the two em- ployees to go up on the mill roof 50 feet above the ground, each holding onto the cyclone with one hand and cleaning the cyclone with the other hand. There was no railing or catwalk surrounding the cyclone. The temperature was 24°F, and there were strong winds. White and Johnson worked on cleaning the cyclone for approximately 20 minutes but then returned to the mill. The superintendent asked if the cyclone had been cleaned and, upon learning that it had not been, asked for an explanation. The employees responded that the severe cold combined with slippery conditions made the job unsafe. Tempest ordered the two employees to return to the roof and clean the cyclone. Consequently, White and Johnson returned to the cyclone but found that they could not clean the cy- clone due to the hazardous conditions. Upon return- ing to the mill the second time, the employees were again confronted by the superintendent. Tempest or- dered them to clean the damn cyclone." What happened next was unclear (even after testi- mony). A "cursing tirade" between Tempest and White ensued, but it was not clear who initiated it. The course of this conversation was disputed: Tempest claimed that White voluntarily quit by saying he was going home instead of going up on the roof in that weather. White claimed that Tempest ordered him off company premises because of his refusal to obey a clear direc- tive to clean the cyclone. White further claimed that he asked for another job assignment. There was no doubt that White used profanity toward his supervisor. The end result was that White left work, and his employment at the Tiger Oil Mill ceased (but it was un- clear whether he quit or was discharged-even after testimony and cross-examination). Subsequently, the union filed a grievance on behalf of White claiming ne company violated the collective bargaining agree- ment by discharging White without just cause. PTENTIALLY RELEVANT CONTRACT PROVISIONS Article XI-Miscellaneous A) The company will discipline and discharge em- ployees only for just cause. (J) In addition to the grounds for temporary suspen- sion or permanent discharge hereinbefore in this sec- tion enumerated, employees guilty of the following activities shall be the subject of permanent dismissal or other disciplinary action at the discretion of the employ- er: (1) insubordination, (2) using materials or machin- ery contrary to instructions, (3) inefficiency, spoilage, or negligent waste of materials, (4) throwing materi- als about the plant or out of windows, (5) boisterous talk, profanity, or horseplay, (6) gambling on employer's premises, (7) theft of employer's or private property, (8) smoking anywhere inside the plant fence or in any of the employer's departments, (9) drunkenness, ob- scenity, or immorality, (10) bringing intoxicating liquors on employer's property, (11) interference with produc- tion by slowdown or sitdown, (12) violations of plant or department rules or regulations, or (13) padding pay reports or any other form of dishonesty. POTENTIALLY RELEVANT ARBITRATION PRECEDENT Standard arbitrator practice is that safety and health reasons are potentially valid reasons for not carrying out a work assignment. The following portion of an arbitration award sums up the accepted standard: An employee may refuse to carry out a particular work assignment if, at the time he is given the work as- signment, he reasonably believes that by carrying out such work assignment he will endanger his safety or health. In such an instance the employee has the duty, not only of stating that he believes there is a risk to his safety or health, and has the reason for believing so, but he also has the burden, if called upon, of showing by appropriate evidence that he had a reasonable basis for his belief. In the case of dispute, ... the question to be decided is not whether he actually would have suf- fered injury but whether he had a reasonable basis for believing so. [Laclead Gas Co., 39 LA 833 (1962)] QUESTIONS 1. A Tiger the and you al vio- 3. Assau (Hint: Pav.careful attentiones roof.) 341Explanation / Answer
1. I am the labor relations representative for Tiger Oil Mill. The working conditions are the main important conditions for the employee to work and for his safety purpose. The job which has been assigned to the white was not in the proper working environment. He and his fellow were assigned a job that they have to clean the mill cyclone. The mill roof was 50 feet above the ground. They have to keep their self with one hand and clean by another hand. It was really a tough working conditions. Apart from this the temperature was 24 Degree F and the strong winds was blowing. White has refuses to do the job as the working conditions was not proper. It was the correct decision taken by White as not to work on these conditions. So, the discharge of bob was proper.
2. As the chief steward for Local 4417, I would try to convince an arbitrator that the dismissal violated the collective bargaining agreement as the Oil company have already have the contract provisions before joining any employee to their team. It was priory intimated by the company to the employee that they should not do certain things which may cause the dismal of their position from the job.
3. As an arbitrator, I would say that if the working conditions are not up to the level that doesn’t risk the safety and the health issues then the employee should not work on these conditions. Safety conditions are the foremost important than the assignment job or obeying rules of the company. It is the company duty to make sure that there is no risk associated to the job. It is actually a kind of liability of the employer. I would provide the evidence on this behalf of the White who states that about the working conditions and his colleague Michael Johnson. The logic here is that the life of the employees are more important than the job as they are also the resources of the company. Contract may not be more than some ones health or safety.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.