1720 Goodson v. UAW-Chrysler Department

Representative Stalnaker’s handling of Goodson’s grievance reveals that he recognized the merit in her position.  He did not withdraw Goodson’s grievance; he negotiated a valuable settlement that protected her seniority, restored her livelihood, and provided some compensation for the income she lost during the period she was discharged. Stalnaker had a rational basis for his decision to accept a settlement with less than full back pay.  This record supports Stalnaker’s conclusion that an unfavorable ruling by an arbitrator was a distinct possibility.  Goodson had shown herself to be a poor witness on her own behalf during her interviews with Chrysler.  Written accounts of the interviews revealed Goodson to be an evasive and argumentative witness.  An arbitrator might well conclude that Goodson was being deliberately deceptive. The substantial benefits obtained through the settlement would have been put at risk if the case had been submitted to arbitration. Stalnaker had to weigh this possible outcome in making his recommendation to Goodson that she ought to accept the settlement he had achieved.