Question

Grievance Case: Insubordination Local 4417 is the authorized bargaining agent for all employees, except clerical, supervisory and security employees, at the Tiger Oil Mill in Montana. On January 5, an electrical motor broke causing the mill to shut down. Shortly thereafter, the Mill Superintendent Frank Tempest assigned Bob White and Michael Johnson to clean the mill’s cyclone. This assignment required the two employees to go up on the mill roof 50 feet above the ground, hold onto the cyclone with one hand and clean the cyclone with the other hand. There is no railing or catwalk surrounding the cyclone. The temperature was 24 F and there were strong winds. Bob and Mike 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 finding out that it had not been, asked for an explanation. The employees responded that the sever cold combined with slippery conditions made the job unsafe. Frank ordered the two employees to go back on the roof to clean the cyclone. Consequently, Bob and Mike returned to the cyclone, but found that they could not clean the cyclone due to the hazardous conditions. Upon returning to the mill the second time, the employees were again confronted by the Superintendent. Frank ordered them to clean the cyclone. What happened next is unclear (even after testimony). A cursing tirade between Frank and Bob ensued, but it is not clear who initiated it. The course of this conversation is disputed: Frank claims that Bob voluntarily quit by saying he was going home instead of going up on the roof in that weather. Bob claims that Frank ordered him off company premises because of his refusal to obey a clear directive: clean the cyclone. Bob further claims that he asked for another job assignment. There is no doubt that Bob used profanity towards his supervisor. The end result was that Bob left work and his employment at the Tiger Oil Mill ceased (but it is unclear whether he quit or was discharged - even after testimony and cross-examination). Subsequently, the Union filed a grievance on behalf of Bob White claiming the Company violated the collective bargaining agreement by discharging Bob White without just cause. Potentially Relevant Contract Provisions Article XI - MISCELLANEOUS The Company will only discipline and discharge employees for just cause (J) In addition to the grounds for temporary suspension or permanent discharge hereinbefore in this section enumerated, employees guilty of the following activities shall be the subject of permanent dismissal or other disciplinary action at the discretion of the employer; (1) insubordination, (2) using materials or machinery contrary to instructions, (3) insufficiency, spoilage or negligent waste of materials, (4) throwing materials about the plant or out of windows, (5) boisterous talk, profanity or horseplay, (6) gambling on employer’s premises, (7) theft of employer’s private property, (8) smoking anywhere inside the plant fence or in any of the employer’s departments, (9) drunkenness, obscenity or immorality, (10) bringing intoxicating liquors on employer’s property, (11) interference with production 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 work assignment, 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 the 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 suffered injury but whether he had a reasonable basis for believing so. [Laclead Gas Co., 39 LA 833 (1962)]

As the labor relation’s rep for the Tiger Oil Mill, develop a case for your contention that the discharge of Bob White was proper.

As the Chief Steward for Local 4417, how would you try to convince an arbitrator that the dismissal violates the collective bargaining agreement?

As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why?

Answer 1

1. The environment of the workplace is the main factor for the employees to work with motivation and safety. The working conditions for the White are not suitable for the job as he and his colleagues were asked to clean the mill cyclone. This work is very dangerous for them because the mill roof was 50 feet above from the ground. To the clean mill, they have kept one hand for handling oneself and others for cleaning that make this condition very tough. Other than this, the temperature of the mill was 240F and the wind was blowing is very strong which tends to increase the dangerous s condition for them. Due to these dangerous conditions, no one can be ready to work. White will also refuse to work here and make the right decision. Therefore, the discharge of bob was proper.
2. Before the joining of any employee in the team, the Oil company has already tied in the contract provisions. The provisional contract of the company mentioned that the employees should not do certain things that might cause dismal of their job positions. This is a straight statement that is very convincing for the arbitrator.
3. As mentioned above, the working conditions are the main factors in which the employee will work with motivation and without the risk of its health. If the working conditions of the company are not good then an individual should not work in these conditions. Safety is the most important thing instead of obeying rules or assignments of the company. The first duty of the company is to make sure that the hired employee will work in a healthy and safe work environment. In the case of White and his colleague, there are the same working conditions and they refuse to work. Lastly, an individual’s life and health are more important than any kind of job or work.