Your assignment is to read the facts below and decide the case. Write an opinion as if you were the arbitrator. Explain the rationale for your decision.

1.They had a rule,

2. The employee knew about the rule,

3. The employee violated the rule

ADMIN-DECISION, ARB-RESEARCHER 99-2 ARB 13212, EWD, LLC (El Paso Warehouse) and United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 119, May 05, 1999) EWD, LLC (El Paso Warehouse) and United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 119 BARNETT M. GOODSTEIN, Arbitrator. Selected through FMCS. Case No. 99-04165. Hearing held in El Paso, Texas, on May 5, 1999. Award issued on May 11, 1999. Roger Grashel, Director of Production Control, for the Employer. Danny Trull, International Representative for the Union GOODSTEIN, Arbitrator; ISSUE: DID THE COMPANY HAVE JUST CAUSE FOR THE THREE-DAY SUSPENSION OF THE GRIEVANT, [A]. ON JUNE 8, 1998? IF NOT, WHAT SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY THEREFORE? BACKGROUND The Company is a Division of Yazaki, with a Warehouse in El Paso, and manufacturing plants in Mexico. The Company manufactures wiring hamesses for the automobile industry. Raw material is sent from various parts of the United States to the El Paso Warehouse, for trans-shipment to the Company's various facilities in Mexico. The raw materials are fabricated in Mexico, and returned to the Warehouse in El Paso, from where the finished products are shipped to various Chrysler Plants in the United States. The Company's first Warehouse in El Paso was occupied in 1978 or 1979. The current Warehouse has been at its present location for some 10 years. The current Warehouse contains some 140,000 square feet. The Company employs approximately 20,000 employees in Mexico and El Paso. The El Paso Warehouse has a bargaining unit of 28 employees at the present time. The Grievant, [A] and [B] both are stock attendants--materials at the El Paso Warehouse. On June 5, 1998, in the late afternoon, while both the Grievant and Mr. [B] were working at their jobs in the Warehouse, on their regular first shift duties, the incident in question occurred between the two of them. It appears that, while the Grievant was passing by Mr. [B], Mr. [B] asked him why he did not pick up the wire that was on the floor, thus causing Mr. [B] to do the Grievant's work. However, another version of the incident appears to be that the Grievant, in passing by Mr. [B], "insinuated to [B] with words, that he was not doing his work, and that why did other people have to carry his weight." Words then were used by each against the other until, at one point, the Grievant called Mr. [B]'s wife a whore, and threatened Mr. [B]'s family with bodily harm, in an attempt to provoke an altercation between them. Both versions seem to be based primarily, on hearsay evidence. According to the Grievant, he was unloading wire late Friday afternoon (June 5, 1998), when he was paged to come to the office to determine why wire was on the floor of the Warehouse where he was working. The Grievant was stopped by Mr. [B] who, apparently, was complaining about something the Grievant either was, or was not, doing. The Grievant replied that Mr. [B] should stop complaining that he would get it done when he was able to do so. According to the Grievant, Mr. [B] gestured to the Grievant in a way that the Grievant thought he was being challenged by Mr. [B], such as "what are you going to do about it?" An argument ensued between the two of them, during which the Grievant apparently lost his temper (according to the Grievant). The Grievant then called Mr. [B]'s wife a whore, and, apparently threatened reprisals against Mr. [B]'s family, while admittedly trying to provoke a fight with Mr. [B]. Mr. [B] left the argument to go to the office of a Warehouse Supervisor, Mr. [C]. When he arrived at the office of Mr. [C], he refused to tell him what had happened. Mr. [B] asked that the Supervisor call for the Grievant to come to his office at that time, before he would say anything. When the Grievant appeared at the door of the Supervisor's office, he saw Mr. [B] sitting there with Mr. (C), and he refused to enter the room. The Grievant then told Mr. [C] that he would not enter the office while Mr. [B] was there, since he might hit him if they were brought together. One version then recites that the Grievant also threatened to hit Mr. [C] because of his "double standard." Certain Company instruments, and the Grievant himself, both deny a threat by the Grievant to Mr. (C). Mr. [B], although present during the arbitration hearing, did not testify. However, there being no Union Representative present at that late hour on Friday afternoon, Mr. [C] postponed the meeting until 7:00 am. on Monday, June 8, when a Union Representative would be present to meet with them. The Monday moming meeting was held in the office of Mr. [D], the Director of Production Control, to whom the Warehouse Supervisors report. Present at that meeting were Mr. [D], Mr. (E), the Warehouse Supervisor and Traffic Manager, Mr. (C), the Warehouse Supervisor who is the immediate supervisor of both Mr. [B] and the Grievant, Mr. (F), a Union Representative, and the Grievant. At this meeting, the Grievant admitted that he had lost his cool," and that he tried to provoke Mr. [B] into a fight with him. Apparently, Mr. [E] has the reputation of a peace maker, at the Warehouse, and it is to him that arguments between co-workers usually are taken Mr. [E] heard what was brought out at the Monday morning meeting, and suggested that the Grievant apologize to Mr. [B], and that end the matter for everyone. The Grievant agreed to apologize to Mr. [B], and to retract what he had said about his wife, in an effort to end the problem between them, that had flared on the Friday afternoon before. Mr. [B], however, refused to accept the apology of the Grievant, and told Mr. [E] he wanted it carried farther than that. He did not say what he wanted to happen to the Grievant. After the June 8 meeting, according to Company minutes of the Third Step Grievance Meeting, after the Grievance had been filed, Mr. [E] was reminded of threats of violence allegedly made by the Grievant against both Mr. (B) and Mr. (C), while he stood outside the door of the Supervisor's office. Mr. [E] agreed that the threat of violence "required disciplinary action." It was then, later in the day of June 8, that Mr. [E] wrote to the UAW Representative, notifying him that he was then suspending the Grievant from June 6 through June 11, 1998. The reason given was the violation of Item #5 of the Plant Rules and Regulations. The Suspension Letter then recites Item #5, as follows: "Threatening, intimidating, coercing or interfering with fellow employees on premises." The Letter was signed by Mr. [E), and carries the following notation: "Employee Refused to Sign." On the same date, June 8, the Grievant filed his Grievance against the Company. In his Grievance, the Grievant accuses the Company of "Unjustly Disciplinary Layoff, Discrimination against a Union Member: Unjustly suspended without Due Process." The remedy requested is that the Grievant be made whole. The Company denied the Grievance at each Step of the Grievance Procedure and after the Third Step Grievance Meeting, the Union Representative at that meeting stated that the union would arbitrate the issue." The Grievance then was certified to arbitration, where both parties agree that it is properly before the arbitrator for a decision At the arbitration hearing, both parties put on testimonial evidence, and introduced written exhibits. At the close of the hearing, both parties made oral summations. Neither party submitted a written Brief