Union loses arbitration case on discharge at Strattec

By Scott Godshaw

The Union recently received an unfavorable arbitration ruling from Jay E. Grenig. The member was discharged for alleged violence while on the picket line.

In the strike settlement agreement, the Company reserves the right to administer discipline to a striker who participated in incidents of physical violence while on the picket line. Strattec claimed that at approximately 6:00 a.m. on June 14th, the grievant struck a non-striking employee in the head. The incident was videotaped. A management representative observed an injury to the non-striking employee who stated he was "smacked" in the side of the head. Photographs were taken.

The Company in their arbitration argument relied on a case in 1984 from a company called Clear Pine Moldings, Inc. That ruling stated that an employee may lawfully be denied reinstatement whose picket line misconduct under the circumstances "may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights." According to Strattec, if the arbitrator determines the grievant is guilty of such misconduct, the grievant will be deemed to have forfeited his statutory right to reinstatement and accordingly the arbitrator's analysis is completed and the arbitrator must find that the grievant's termination was lawful. Once again, according to Strattec, the grievant's conduct falls well within the more flagrant range of striker misconduct.

The Union argued that the strike settlement agreement does not itself define the NLRB standard of strike misconduct. The agreement only adopts the NLRB misconduct standard and not the shifting burden of proof utilized by the NLRB.

The Union asserts that the preponderance of the evidence does not support the employer's claim that the grievant engaged in strike misconduct under the NLRB's decision. The videotape shows that the vehicle almost came in contact with the grievant and that the grievant made "a gesture at the car window." The videotape does not show the grievant hit the driver but confirms that the grievant withdrew his hand quickly. Whether or not the grievant had made contact, the Union says, that there was no forceful hit and the grievant's conduct was isolated and inadvertent. The grievant's conduct, we felt, did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the strike settlement agreement.

According to the arbitrator's decision, he claims that the parties agreed that the arbitrator is required to apply the NLRB's misconduct standard for reinstatement of employees involved in strike misconduct. The arbitrator has no authority to modify the parties Strike Settlement Agreement. Thus, how the employer has disciplined employees under the just cause provision of the contract for non strike-related misconduct is irrelevant. The arbitrator states that the record contains specific evidence linking the grievant to the alleged misconduct that may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Accordingly, under the misconduct standard set forth in "Clear Pine Mouldings", the employer's refusal to reinstate the grievant did not violate the parties' Strike Settlement Agreement and the grievance was denied.