Grimes's wrongful termination and the employer's failure to document disciplinary procedures

Truth

Who's Telling the Truth?

Who's Telling the Truth?

The principle weakness in the company's case is its failure to keep written records about their employee Grimes. Lenz said he had disciplinary talks with Grimes "five or ten times ... " but had not written down anything, and Lee, the supervisor, could not recall the date he requested Grimes be moved. He claimed Grimes had excess breakage but had no records to support that Grimes' breakage was more than other employees'.

Common fairness would say Grimes had the right to an impartial witness when management had their witnesses present. We don't know what their contract stated regarding the employee's right to a witness, but it would have been a benefit to management if, as they claim, they talked to Grimes on repeated occasions about his incompetence. If Grimes had had a witness there repeatedly, this would have been on the side of management's claim that they talked to him many times before firing him.

Just cause as a contractual basis for the right-to-discipline or discharge a worker requires employers to adequately warn an employee first. This would include written notice and a suspension without pay before firing him.

4. I believe witnesses for the grievant because their testimony is more consistent. There are inconsistencies in the stories of the witnesses for the employer. For instance, Lentz testified he called Grimes in and said, "We moved you to the bench room because Mr. Lee doesn't want you in the surface room anymore." No mention of incompetence. Lentz didn't notify Grimes in writing, he said, because he didn't want to start writing people up, but he admitted he had written people up in the past before he fired them. Murphy said Grimes was too slow, first; then, he said Grimes rushed through jobs too quickly. And if Grimes were incompetent, why was he promoted to journeyman?