Answer the question for each case.

Question: As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why?

Case 6

case 7

BACKGROUND John Arnett was a truck driver for Saga Food Services. He was part of a bargaining unit represented by Teamsters Local 444. Arnett's normal workweek consisted of four 10-hour workdays, Tuesday through Friday. The Labor Day holiday fell on a Monday, and as was past practice, employ- ees who were normally not scheduled to work Monday observed the holiday on Tuesday. Thus Arnett's Labor Day holiday was actually scheduled for Tuesday. At 11:00 P.M. on Tuesday night Arnett called the company and informed the clerk on duty that he was not coming to work on the following day because he was taking a personal leave day. Arnett did not receive per- mission from his shift manager or any supervisor to take Wednesday as a personal leave day. However, as estab- lished by past practice, the company did not refuse a per- sonal leave day if the leave was requested an hour and a half or more before a worker's schedule shift starting time. In sum, Labor Day was on a Monday, but Arnett was not scheduled to work Mondays so his Labor Day holiday was on Tuesday. Arnett then took a personal leave day on Wednesday. The company subsequently refused to pay Arnett for his holiday (Tuesday), claiming that he did not ful- fill the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement. The union filed a grievance requesting that Arnett be paid his holiday pay because he fulfilled the requirement for holiday pay computation set forth in the collective bar- gaining agreement. BACKGROUND Local 4417 was the authorized bargaining agent for all employ- ees, except clerical, supervisory and security employees. at the Tiger Oil Mill in Mississippi. On January 5 an electric motor broke, causing the mil to shut down. Shortly thereafter mill superintendent Frank Tempest assigned Bob White and Michael Johnson to clean the mil's cyclone. This assignment required the two employees to go up on the mil roof 50 feet above the ground, each holding onto the cyclone with one hand and cleaning the cyclone with the other hand. There was no railing or catwalk surrounding the cyclone. The tem- perature was 24"F, and there were strong winds. White and Johnson 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 learning that it had not been, asked for an expla- nation. The employees responded that the severe cold combined with slippery conditions made the job unsafe. Tempest ordered the two employees to return to the roof and clean the cyclone. Consequently. White and Johnson 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. Tempest ordered them to clean the damn cyclone." What happened next was unclear (even after testimony). A cursing tirade" between Tempest and White ensued, but it was not clear who initiated it. The course of this conversa- tion was disputed: Tempest claimed that White voluntarily quit by saying he was going home instead of going up on the roof in that weather. White claimed that Tempest ordered him off company premises because of his refusal to obey a clear directive to clean the cyclone. White further claimed that he asked for another job assignment. There was no doubt that White used profanity toward his supervisor. The end result was that White left work, and his employment at the Tiger Oil Mill ceased (but it was unclear whether he quit or was discharged-even after testimony and cross-examination. Subsequently, the union filed a grievance on behalf of White claiming the company vio- lated the collective bargaining agreement by discharging White without just cause