$1-2-3$ YOU'RE FIRED

Background

Simon Warren had been employed with the Gill Studios as a Press Operator for $81/2$ years. As such, he had been a good employee, up until three years prior to his grievance and discharge. He began having problems with his supervisors and with tardiness and absenteeism$.$ The situation became severe enough for him to receive written reprimands and, ultimately, a termination notice. On May $20,1981,$ Warren was issued his first written reprimand for the six$-$month period. His immediate supervisor, Mr$.$ Romine, had asked Warren to assist in setting up a new job before his shift ended. Warren went to the restroom, then spent the remaining $20$ minutes of his shift cleaning out plastic ink buckets. Employees are allowed to take the buckets home, but any cleaning must be done on non$-$work time. When approached about his activities, Warren stated that Mr$.$ Romine had expressed interest in obtaining some of the buckets and the clean ones were for him. Mr$.$ Romine told Warren to leave the buckets alone and wrote a Reprimand Report for wasting company time. On November $19,1981,$ Warren and a coworker were standing at their presses. Mr$.$ Romine walked by the area and noticed a bucket of ink had been spilled on the floor. He instructed Warren and the other worker to clean up the mess. The other worker began scraping the ink off the. floor with car tags. Warren left the area, stating that he was going to get a poster to use in clean up$.$ He was gone an extremely long time, and the other worker had cleaned the floor during the time he was gone. Mr$.$ Romine discussed the situation with Mr$.$ Holiman, General Superintendent. Both men agreed that Warren needed to be disciplined for acts of insubordination. Mr$.$ Romine issued another written reprimand that day. Mr$.$ Holiman told Mr$.$ Romine to keep an eye on Warren, because of the problems they were having. Under the company six$-$month rule, an employee who receives three written reprimands within a six$-$month time span would be terminated. Several employees had faced the situation prior to Warren and had been terminated. Mr$.$ Romine was not aware of the fact that Warren had received two reprimands within six months. Mr$.$ Holiman discovered the fact on November $19,$ but did not inform Mr$.$Romine until November $20.$ On the morning of November $20,$ Warren took a $12-$minute restroom break before his regularly scheduled break. He also took another extended break prior to lunch. Mr$.$ Romine said Warren did not inform him of the breaks beforehand; Warren claimed he did. Mr$.$ Romine went to Mr$.$ Holiman with the matter, at which time he learned of the three reprimands and possible termination. In the afternoon of that day, Warren took an eight$-$minute break in the restroom. Mr$.$ Romine found Warren in the restroom, smoking, and reported the fact to Mr$.$ Holiman. Both felt that the only alternative was another written reprimand, and thus termination, for warren.

The Company's Position

Mr$.$ Romine and Mr$.$ Holiman both stated that Warren had been an excellent employee up until a certain point. He had developed a negative, irresponsible attitude, which was apparent at work. He had received numerous other reprimands, but not within this. six$-$month period. The incidents in question more than warranted the resulting action. Other employees had been treated in the same manner in prior instances. The three$-$reprimand rule was applied to all employees equitably and without prejudice. Any other choice in the matter would have involved showing favoritism toward Warren. This would certainly have opened the company to further liability based on discriminatory actions. The company had no alternative other than termination.

Warren's Position

Warren admitted to wrongdoing when faced with the first two reprimands. He chose to not file grievances for some of the reprimands he had received but did file in October $1980.$ By his own admission, Warren had forgotten about the reprimand in May $1981.$ His only current reprimand, to his recollection, was on November $19.$ He received no reminder from either Mr$.$ Romine or Mr$.$ Holiman about the one in May, and thus felt he should not have been terminated by the reprimand issued on November $20.$ This last one came just a few hours before the end of the six$-$month period from the first reprimand. Warren felt the company did not deal fairly with him and thus filed the grievance for reinstatement and back pay.

$1.$ Did the company create a favorable or unfavorable environment for Warren's continued employment by "keeping an eye on him?"

$2.$ What action should have been taken on November $19?$ Why?

$3.$ How would you decide in this case? Explain.