Case Study 2 The Arbitration Case of Jesse Stansky At the arbitration hearing, both parties were adamant The termination of Stansky concerned an alter- in their positions. Nancy Huang, HR manager of Phoe- cation between himself and Gary Lindekin, another nix Semiconductor, argued that the grievant, Jesse systems technician. According to witnesses to the Stansky, was justly terminated for arguing and hitting a incident, both Stansky and Lindekin became visibly coworker-a direct violation of company policy and the upset over the correct way to calibrate a sensitive piece employee handbook. Stansky argued that he had been a of production equipment. The argument-one wit- good employee during his 10 years of employment. ness called it no more than a heated disagreement- The submission agreement governing the case lasted approximately three minutes and concluded read, "It is the employer's position that just cause when Stansky was seen forcefully placing his hand on existed for the discharge of Mr. Jesse Stansky and the Lindekin's shoulder. Lindekin took extreme excep- penalty was appropriate for the offense committed. tion to Stansky's behavior and immediately reported Additionally, the employer introduced into evidence the incident to management. After interviews with the labor agreement, which defined just cause termi- both Stansky and Lindekin and those who observed nation as follows: the incident, Huang, Samantha Lowry, the employee's Just cause shall serve as the basis for disciplin- immediate supervisor, and Grant Ginn, department ary action and includes, but is not limited to: manager, decided that Stansky should be terminated dishonesty, inefficiency, unprofessional con for unprofessional conduct and violation of company duct, failure to report absences, falsification of policy. records, violation of company policy, destruc- tion of property, or possession or being under Questions the influence of alcohol or narcotics. 1. Which arguments should be given more weight: Stansky was hired as a systems technician on No- those based on company policy, the employee vember 20, 1998, a position he held until his termina- handbook, and the labor agreement or mitigating tion on October 25, 2011. According to the testimony factors given by the grievant and his witnesses? of Huang, Phoenix Semiconductor strived to maintain Explain. a positive and cordial work environment among its employees. Fighting on the job was strictly prohib- 2. How might unprofessional conduct be defined? ited. Stansky's performance evaluation showed him Explain. to be an average employee, although he had received 3. If you were the arbitrator, how would you rule several disciplinary warnings for poor attendance and in this case? Explain fully the reasons for your one three-day suspension for a systems control error." decision. Stansky was generally liked by his coworkers, and sev- Source: Adapted from an arbitration heard by George W. Bohlander. eral testified on his behalf at the arbitration hearing. All names are fictitious