Management and union arguments in McNamara discharge case

Strongest Arguments for Management Rafael Gomez and the management team can and will claim that McNamara had been reprimanded verbally on several specific occasions, related to violations of several formal safety and procedural codes. Moreover, management does have proof of the formal, written reprimand McNamara received in which she was suspended for three days and warned that her contract would be immediately terminated if any other rules were violated. McNamara seems to have deliberately flouted the rules on several occasions. The contract provisions clearly state that causes for immediate discharge do include disobedience, neglect of duty, refusal to comply with plant rules, sleeping on duty, and reading magazines while on duty (Article XX). Management retains the right to reprimand or warn verbally as well as in writing. It is unlikely there was no additional sign posted in English. Yet even if there was no sign printed in English, McNamara’s twenty years of experience and her having received numerous verbal reprimands would have indicated familiarity with the basic rules related to wearing safety gloves and glasses. If McNamara complained that the gloves made doing her job too difficult, then management would have two strong responses. First, management would point out that McNamara was the only person on duty who did not wear the gloves and that no one else had been complaining. Second, management would point out that McNamara should have let management know the bundles were tied too tight and were impeding the ability of workers to cut the plastic tie. It does not seem that McNamara ever brought this issue up with management. Strongest Arguments for the Union The Union can and will claim that Gomez did not provide written reprimands until the most recent incident involving her reading a magazine. The fact that all reprimands until this point were verbal does hurt management’s case. In fact, Gomez may have no proof of the several conversations he had with McNamara regarding issues like sleeping during safety meetings or not wearing the appropriate safety gear. Moreover, the Union will claim that McNamara did not see a sign containing the safety rules in English. This could end up being the union’s strongest case. It will be necessary for the Union to prove that an English sign did not exist, and/or that McNamara complained about the lack of English signs. The Union may also claim that management was not doing enough to promote a culture of safety, by creating bundles that were tied too tightly to be removed without safety gloves. Given that McNamara’s colleagues were still able to carry out their duties with gloves, this line of reasoning is unlikely to hold weight during arbitration. Suggestions for Arbitration The case is stronger for management than it is for the union. Gomez did use the formal procedures for issuing warnings and reprimands. He offered McNamara several opportunities to correct her behavior, even eventually issued a written reprimand. McNamara’s behavior does clearly violate many of the Article XX provisions, and management has just cause for contract termination in this case, particularly as McNamara’s behavior included violations of safety regulations and additional violations like sleeping and reading magazines while at work.