1666 Grimske v. Local Union 155

Even if the Union convinced an arbitrator that Grimske’s actions did not constitute theft, his behavior with respect to the Company’s tools implied a greater claim to possession of them than appears to have been justified. He put the tool in his toolbox to prevent other employees from using them. Furthermore, the Union would still have had to overcome the fact that this was Grimske’s fifth disciplinary action, so that he could be terminated in accordance with progressive discipline. Under the circumstances, it was rational for the Union to negotiate a settlement for Grimske rather than submitting his grievance to arbitration with little likelihood of a successful outcome.