Based on the arguments presented how do you think the arbitrator would rule in Case study 6 below ?

On the morning on March 8, 2004, Allen Ramsey was in volved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a 2003 Mack truck on behalf of Austen Company. As Ramsey was driving, in the area of the Lee Tire curve of the Schuylkill Expressway, Mr. Ramsey ran into another Austen Company, vehicle. Ramseys vehicle sustained over $4,000 in damages and no necessary repairs were needed for the vehicle struck by Ramsey. As a result of this accident, Ramsey was terminated from his employment with Austen Company for being involved in a major accident. Under the Uniform Rules and Regulations as Exhibit C, section 1(a) Accidents, it clearly states, Major chargeable accident (after full investigation) is subject to discharge. The employer moved forward with termination based on the terms of the agreement and presented similar cases where termination was upheld as evidence. It was also noted by the employer that the cases were for accidents with lower costs than Ramseys accident. On the other hand, the union believes that Ramsey should not have been terminated and rather, go through the steps as a minor accident. This process would begin with a reprimand since it was his first accident according to his employee record over 4 of employment at Austen Company. The union does not agree the example cases provided by the employer are an equivalent comparison because employees in the cases are repeat offenders involving motor vehicle accidents. The arbitrator will need to first determine if Ramseys accident is considered minor or major before a discipline path can be established.

Managements case:

On behalf of the company, after a full investigation was completed of the event on March 8, it was concluded that the occurrence was indeed a major chargeable accident. There were many supporting arguments that were used throughout the arbitration case in order to fully honor the rules and regulations of Exhibit C.

One of the many arguments that were proposed in the case was the fact that were A substantial amount of damage. After reviewing the damages that had been caused by the trucks colliding, it was estimated that the truck Suffered some $4, 321.45 in damages that particularly involved the hood and radiator and necessitated the replacement of the entire front end. With such substantial damage, the company classified the accident under accident A of the Exhibit C contract, which is subject to discharge.

Another argument supporting the discharge was how Ramsey should have been well aware of the surrounding environment at the Lee Tire curve. He had driven the same route six previous times that same week and the congested conditions were on all of the occasions amply in evidence. So with the conditions being the same throughout all the times Ramsey has visited the Lee Tire Curve, he should have possessed the necessary skills to maneuver around the infrastructure without causing any accidents.

Referring back to previous accidents, the Company had brought up earlier discharges in support of Ramseys discharge. For example, Such action also accords with past practice at Austen, to discharge whenever accidents of this nature have occurred, and the Company cites driver Richie Fox, who, it alleges, was discharged for causing much less damage (to an air compressor) than Ramsey generated here. An additional example that was used was One (davidson Transfer) where discharge was upheld even though the grievant had never been involved in a prior accident and had had 35 years experience and a good operating record, and one (T.I.M.E.-DC, Inc.) where the arbitrator had no difficulty in concluding that damages between $969 and $1,775 were major accidents within the context of the Rules and Regulations adopted by the parties. With other examples of accidents that resulted in discharges, these cases justify that in this instance, with the amount of damage that has been caused, subject to discharge is deemed okay. The total amount in damages for this case exceeds other cases by double the amount, and the level of severity compared to others, is no match.

The last argument that the Company proposed was That in three of the four cases submitted by the Union subsequent to the hearing there was unlike here, some doubt as to chargeability. While in some of the other cases there is doubt as to chargeability, in this instance, according to the Company the accident that was caused by Ramsey was clearly his own fault and no one else's to blame. On all of these grounds, the Company asks the arbitrator to sustain the discharge. Unions Case:

The Union has reviewed the incident and noted that Not only does Exhibit C not call for automatic discharge in the case of a major chargeable accident, but in the instant case a minor rather than a major chargeable accident was involved. As this is an arbitration case, there are two parties involved, The Company (Management) and the Union. With each party, they have their own views and opinions on the matter. In this instance, the two parties have opposite opinions, and each party has many supporting arguments that were made to assist their claim in this arbitration case.

One of the first arguments that were made from the Union was The fact that there was no damage either to the other truck or to any people made. So although the incident was approximately $4,500 in damages, since there were no damages to the other truck or to any people, the Union classified this as a minor chargeable accident and with this being his first offense, under the tenets of Exhibit C, a mere reprimand.

The second argument that was proposed was Grievant Ramsey's work history with the Company. Ramsey has been working with the Company for four and a half years with a perfect work record prior to the accident. At no point in his Austen employment had he even been reprimanded, much less disciplined in any other way, or warned for any action on his part. With a perfect record for four and a half years and this being Ramseys first accident, this should not be classified as a major infraction rather a minor. Just because someone encounters an incident one time, it should not dictate the rest of their future, especially given their background.

Similar to how the Company referred back to previous discharges, The Union asked the Arbitrator to ponder three cases (Walter Troop, Beverly Morgan, and Signal Delivery Service Inc.) where discharges have not been upheld even though the amount of damages went well beyond $4,500. Although in the arbitration case there was no mention of the three cases that did not uphold discharging the worker for their action, there were other cases mentioned that support the Union's claim on why this should be a minor incident rather than a major. One case that was mentioned was Maislin Transport, Where discharge was sustained but one of the bases for such action was the grievants prior accident record. With the Maislin Transport case, an additional factor (prior accident record) was accounted for in the decision making to determine whether discharge was appropriate or not. In Ramseys case, his incident was not as severe and he has a perfect record prior to the accident, yet they want to discharge him right away. In fact, says the Union, no employee has ever been discharged just as a result of an accident at this facility. Another thing to mention is that the cases that were Cited by the Company, where the discharge was sustained despite damages of less than $4,500, the discharges had, unlike Ramsey, been previously disciplined for prior records. So in all instances, the cases that have mentioned a discharge have factored in their previous accident reports in order to determine the decision, and with that in mind, Ramseys case should be a minor accident given his clean record and the fact that no other vehicle or person were injured or damaged.