An Indefinite Suspension for Just Cause
Identification of the Issues
David Gates was arrested on March 30, 2006, and charged with a felony possession of marijuana and a felony conspiracy of other narcotics. After that, he was informed with a letter by the plant manager that he had been suspended as a result of his arrest. The suspension was effective since March 31, 2006, and until further notice. The letter stated that Gates’ continued employment status would be determined based on the disposition of the charges. The Union filed the grievance asking for Gates’ restatement and recovery of all benefits and wages. The plant management denied the grievance and the Union appealed. In response to the appeal, manager of employee relations stated that the company’s position was that Gates presented a significant risk to his fellow employees and himself, and, therefore, should be suspended until his case was resolved by the court. The Union rejected company’s answer and appealed to arbitration. The arbitrator decided that the company did not violate the agreement and acted properly by indefinitely suspending the complainant. One year later Gates agreed to a probationary period for two years and his record would be cleared with no incidents at the end of that period. The plea agreement was signed by the district attorney and Gates and was reported to the company. The company decided to change Gates’ suspension to termination. It may be assumed that the company acted for just cause, suspending Gates’ employment, and they did not violate the agreement.
The major overriding issue of this case is whether the company violated the agreement when suspended Gates indefinitely. The case also raises such issues as whether the company had a legal right to suspend Gates according to the rights clause; whether the Gates’ suspension was for just cause within the relationships of the parties; and whether the company was bound to place Gates on a last chance agreement. In this case, the company has a burden of proof that the suspension was for just cause and in accordance with the right clause of the agreement. The Union is the party which represents bargaining employees in the grievance procedure (Holley et al, 2011). Thus, the Union has the burden of proving the contract was violated by the company in all cases except discharge and disciplinary cases. In disciplinary cases, including discharge, the company has the burden of proving that the discharge or discipline was in accordance with the contract standard for “just cause” (The American Bar Association, 2016).
Analysis and Evaluation
According to art. 16 of the agreement, the company has the right to make and enforce reasonable rules of conduct. The provisions of this article state that the purpose of disciplinary action is discouraging repetition of misconduct, but not the punishment. This article covers the disciplinary for particular conviction of a felony (Holley et al, 2011). Thus, in this case, the rule about off-duty conduct regarding the employee discipline is that Gates had to avoid being convicted of a …
