Two millwrights, Dave (6 years' service) and Dean (14 years' service), were engaging in a friendly, consensual bout of wrestling in the workplace when their supervisor walked into the shop. A small crowd had gathered to watch. When their supervisor told them to stop, they did so immediately, and no one was hurt. The room where the incident took place had concrete floors and various tools and pieces of machinery. After another employee complained, saying someone could have been hurt, their supervisor reported the incident to senior management in an email. (About a year before this incident, the supervisor had issued a memo to staff warning that horseplay had to stop, or else disciplinary action would be taken.)

            Management decided to impose a one-day unpaid suspension on both Dave and Dean for horseplay. The workplace violence policy prohibited fighting and horseplay; it also stated that "all reported incidents will be investigated," and that employees will be disciplined if they have been found to have engaged in workplace violence. A copy of the policy was posted in the workplace and both Dave and Dean had received training on it.

            No formal investigation was ever performed. (Note also that there was an 18-month "sunset clause" in the collective agreement whereby an employee's disciplinary record is "wiped clean" after 18 months if no further disciplinary actions are taken during that time.)

            The union grieved Dave and Dean's one-day unpaid suspension, arguing that while the horseplay was inappropriate, given all the circumstances, only a verbal or written warning should have been given.

Questions

1. Was the one-day unpaid suspension too harsh?

2. What are the union's arguments?

3. what are the employers arguments?

4. What do you think the arbitrator decided? Support your position.

pur-new-sol

Related Questions