The grievant reported to work more than an hour after commencement of his shift. He informed his supervisor that he had stopped by the residence of a friend the night before to watch a basketball game and had overslept, making him late for work. About noon that day, the supervisor was leaving for lunch when he noticed an orange ladder in the back of the grievants pickup truck that appeared to be a company ladder. He reported this to the human resources manager, and they decided to investigate. They went to the grievants truck and confirmed that, indeed, it was a company-labeled ladder. They checked with the guard station to determine whether the grievant had obtained a property removal authorization pass granting him permission to take the ladder off company premises. The guards confirmed that the grievant had not presented them with any such pass. The union vice president was summoned to the scene and was told they were concerned that the grievant might be planning to steal the ladder. The union vice president suggested that they should wait and see whether the grievant actually left the companys premises with the ladder before reaching any conclusions.
The grievant did, in fact, leave with the ladder at approximately 3:30 p.m. The grievant does not dispute the fact that he had never obtained a signed authorization pass to remove the ladder from the facility. The grievant returned the ladder to the company facility at 5:40 p.m. that same day. It was discovered in later discussions that the grievant had originally taken this ladder, without proper written authorization, approximately four months earlier. The grievant said he intended to return it sooner, but it was stored at his home and he was prevented from going on that property due to a court order connected to divorce proceedings. The grievant indicated that his supervisor had given him verbal permission to take the ladder. Witnesses testified that it was common practice for employees to borrow articles from the company merely by obtaining a supervisors verbal permission. The grievants supervisor acknowledged that he did tell the grievant he could take the ladder, but only if he got an authorization slip. The company said the grievant knew the policy because he had obtained written permission several times previously.
Unconvinced by the grievants explanations, the company ultimately came to the conclusion that the grievant intended to steal the ladder and he was terminated. Subsequently, in light of the grievants 24 years of service with the company, the termination was changed to a six-month suspension without pay which amounted to approximately $40,000. The grievant appealed.
Analysis
You do need to process this through Turnitin. Limit your response to a maximum of 2 pages.
As the arbitrator, what would you decide and why?
____ Content (90%)
___ Authorization/framework for the decision is given.(5)
___ Key concepts are expertly defined.(10)
___Each sides point of view is addressed in the rationale.(70)
___ Decision is complete and clear.(5)____Presentation (10%)
___Short introduction gives the purpose and agenda for the response.(2)
___Writing is clear and clean.(5)
___ Short summary recaps the key points.(1)
___ APA is used for in-text and end referencing.(2)