Arbitrator rules against Strattec member in discharge case

By Al Olivares

The Union recently received an unfavorable arbitration ruling from arbitrator Raymond E. McAlpin regarding the discharge of a member for attendance after the company denied his request for emergency leave of absence. The employee had requested the emergency leave of absence because he was incarcerated and his Huber release privileges were suddenly revoked for an alleged violation of the conditions of the work release program.

Emergency Leave Refused

The member was serving a 10-month sentence with work release privileges under the "Huber" law. As a result of failing a random drug test, which showed traces of THC, the member had his work release privileges revoked. The member claimed he had not used marijuana since he had been incarcerated, though he had used it prior to going to jail. This may have led to the traces of THC in his system.

The member, through a family member, requested a (6) week emergency leave for the grievant under Article VIII, Section 14(a) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Company refused to grant this leave. As a result, the grievant was assessed a number of points under the attendance policy, causing him to reach step 6 resulting in his termination.

Company Arguments

The Company argued that they did not arbitrarily deny the grievant’s request for emergency leave. The grievant was incarcerated and therefore unavailable for work. The Company argued that this does not constitute a good sufficient reason for the leave request, which is required under Article VIII, Section 14(a) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Company has never viewed incarceration as a good and sufficient reason for leave requests. Typical emergency requests have been granted for family issues that require the immediate and unexpected presence of a Strattec employee. Therefore, the Company claimed they had exercised discretion in a manner which is not arbitrary.

Union position

Records show that the grievant through his representatives appropriately did ask for six (6) week emergency leave commencing February 21, 2001. The Company did not respond to this leave request, therefore, the leave neither granted nor denied. Notices of progressive discipline were not provided to the grievant since the Company was aware he was not at work nor were they provided to the Union.

It was the Union’s position that the Company discharged the grievant without just cause. Article V, Section 3 provides that employees with seniority will not be disciplined or discharged without just or sufficient cause.

Discharge has been characterized as economic capital punishment. Not only are the employee’s job seniority or other contractual benefits at stake but also his reputation and opportunities for future employment are in jeopardy. The burden of proof has consistently been placed on the employer.

Here the Company seeks to justify the termination based solely on the basis of point accumulation under the no-fault attendance policy. The grievant was not subject to discharge as of February 21, 2001, the date on which his representative requested an emergency leave of absence. Had the leave been granted, the grievant would not have been subject to discharge on February 28 since no points would have been assessed while he was on leave.

The circumstances that the grievant found himself in on February 21, 2002 meet the criteria for an emergency leave. The grievant expected Huber privileges for the 10-month period of his incarceration. The suspension of those privileges was sudden and unexpected; also, there is no question that there were circumstances requiring immediate action.

The Company did not grant the grievant’s leave nor inform him or his Union of its decision, but rather failed to make a decision. The grievant was terminated while the request was pending. This failure was a violation of the just cause in the parties’ agreement. Therefore it is the Union’s position that the failure to receive an appropriate leave was without just cause, this led to the discharge, so his discharge was without just cause as well.

Arbitrator’s Opinion

The arbitrator, in rendering his decision, had to determine if the contract was violated by the denial of the request for emergency leave, then he had to determine if the discharge was for just cause. He first gave his interpretation to the contract language regarding emergency leaves of absence.

Article VIII, Section 14,

(a) "The Company will grant employees temporary emergency leaves of absence for up to six (6) weeks subject to extension, upon the presentation of good and sufficient reason for such leaves of absence or extension. An emergency is defined as a sudden, unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action."

(d) "Should the Company deny an employee’s request for a personal leave of absence, an emergency leave of absence or an adoption leave, the employee shall have the right to request an immediate meeting between the Union and the Company to resolve the issue."

He interpreted this to mean "It is the Employer that makes the decision as to whether good and sufficient reason has been presented. Once management makes the decision, however, the Union may test the decision based on the arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or discriminatory standards. This means that the Employer must have a reason or reasons for its decision, … After a review of the evidence in this case, the Arbitrator finds that there is no showing within the record that the Employer acted in an arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or discriminatory manner. Arbitrators, including this Arbitrator, have generally found that incarceration is neither a good nor sufficient reason for granting a leave of absence."

The arbitrator also considered the arguments that the member had not violated the conditions of his work release and had been unfairly put into this position. Based on the decisions of the review board and judge that revoked the privileges, the Arbitrator agreed that the member had violated his Huber privileges. Based on this and his interpretation of the contract language for emergency leave, he determined that the member had "triggered the discipline in the "no fault" attendance policy which resulted in a just cause termination as defined in the contract."

Therefore he upheld the discharge and denied the grievance. Even though he found that the member was properly discharged under the contract, he did go on to state that "it is very common for employees who fail to show up for work for an extended period of time to be considered a constructive quit." He stated that the employer had the right to discharge the member, however he did not feel it is right that the member have the discharge on his record, given the circumstances around this discharge.

The Arbitrator went on to "ask that the Employer change its records … to show that he had constructively quit his employment." This request has not been answered and the member’s record still shows a discharge.