Michigan Radio & TV Buzzboard

The Arbitrator did order reinstatement of the employee, subject to some really strict conditions.

In his award, the Arbitrator said “In spite of Mr. H****’s best efforts to shoot himself in the foot. I have decided to give him another chance. Not for his sake, but for the sake of his family.”

By this time, he had already been off the job for three months. The Arbitrator directed the record to show this as a three-month, unpaid, disciplinary suspension.

He further declared that for his first twelve months back on the job, the grievor would be on probation. During that twelve months, if the employee committed any infraction that would normally attract discipline, the Company could treat that as a culminating incident and immediately discharge the employee.

In any grievance stemming from the discharge, the Union would be restricted to arguing the facts and could not ask for relief on the penalty

Turkeytop wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 23, 2022 8:25 pm

The Arbitrator did order reinstatement of the employee, subject to some really strict conditions.

In his award, the Arbitrator said “In spite of Mr. H****’s best efforts to shoot himself in the foot. I have decided to give him another chance. Not for his sake, but for the sake of his family.”

By this time, he had already been off the job for three months. The Arbitrator directed the record to show this as a three-month, unpaid, disciplinary suspension.

He further declared that for his first twelve months back on the job, the grievor would be on probation. During that twelve months, if the employee committed any infraction that would normally attract discipline, the Company could treat that as a culminating incident and immediately discharge the employee.

In any grievance stemming from the discharge, the Union would be restricted to arguing the facts and could not ask for relief on the penalty

I suppose the next question:
Did the guy make it 12 months?

As soon as the Arbitration award came down, the Comany's lawyer called me. She said her client did not want the guy back and wanted to discuss a severance package to get him to leave.

We met the next day. The lawyer, the plant manager, the employee and me'

He had already been off the job for three months. The Company proposed to pay him for the three months. The employee would resign and the employer would provide him with a neutral letter of reference.

I met privately with the guy and advised him he should seriously consider the Company's offer.
I told him if he went back to work, he would have to be a squeaky clean virgin for the next year. There would be a target on his back and the Company would be watching for their chance to get him.

After a lot of discussion, he said he would agree to it, provided the payment could be structured in such a way that his soon to be ex wife couldn't get her hands on any of it.

I told him that was beyond anything I could do for him. I told him he should talk to his divorce lawyer about it.

He left the room for a while, I believe to call his lawyer. I don't think he was successful in contacting him.

After returning he finally said he would accept the offer if the payment was in cash. I conveyed that proposal to the Company but, as I expected, they were unwilling to make the payment in cash (about $12 K)

After a lot of spinning of our wheels on both sides, the Company finally agreed to pay him by cheque, rather than by direct deposit to his bank.

The matter was resolved.

I was pretty confident my response was correct.

Sounds like, in the grand scheme of things, there was no way to save this guy from himself. Stupid tee shirt choice for one thing….

They all end with a buyout. No employer wants to keep a discipline case.

The last I heard he had gotten himself into some trouble for stalking his ex-wife and violating a Restraining Order.

MATT: I never worked for that fast food company you are almost mentioning.

paul8539 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 12, 2022 4:42 am

MATT: I never worked for that fast food company you are almost mentioning.

Was it Long John Silver's instead?

The boss just wanted to get rid of the employee so he ran him up on a charge he could not disprove.