Arbitration Summary UW 10-02

Agency/Contract:  University of Washington, Campuswide

Contract Article(s):    Art. 23 (Corrective Action)

Arbitrator:  Alan Krebs

Action: Dismissal

Outcome:    Grievance Denied, 03/01/2010

The issue in this case was whether the employer had just cause to terminate the grievant’s employment for a variety of alleged offenses. The grievant worked for the employer for approximately ten years, four of which as a lead worker. The employer terminated the grievant for inappropriate behavior, willful failure to follow safety regulations, and for inappropriate activities regarding purchase of materials for work and for taking material for use in his personal business.

The employer argued that the grievant admitted having used inappropriate language and gestures.  The employer also argued the grievant had placed himself and his crew in danger by ignoring safety regulations.  The employer asserted the grievant inappropriately mixed his personal business with work by ordering parts for his business at the same reduced rate given to the university. Lastly, the employer argued the grievant engaged in gross malfeasance when ordering an excessively large quantity of supplies for the employer when the employer already had the supplies on hand for a project that had not yet been approved.  The employer also argued the circumstantial evidence was clear and convincing that the grievant had been complicit in the disappearance of two items from the employer’s inventory.

The union argued that discipline less severe than termination should be imposed commensurate with the behavior actually proved by the employer.  The union conceded that the grievant had exhibited poor judgment when he discounted safety regulations, but that such an isolated incident had never before resulted in termination.  The union argued that although the grievant admitted to using inappropriate language, no one had ever complained before about his behavior, and his behavior was not unusual in the type of work he performed.  The union asserted that the grievant adamantly denied having engaged in any inappropriate activities related to the purchase or use of employer property, and there was no evidence the grievant engaged in theft.  The union argued that the grievant was a valuable long-term employee who deserved progressive discipline.

The arbitrator determined the grievant engaged in improper conduct by violating his ethical obligation to keep his private business totally separate from his employment.  The arbitrator did not find the grievant credible. The arbitrator found that the ethical violations combined with the profane behavior and the willful violation of a safety rule created a sufficient basis to uphold the termination.   The grievance was denied.