1693 Homan v. Region 4

Homan was terminated because her fidelity bond was revoked after an investigator reported that she had notarized a signature without actually seeing the person sign the document. International Representative Rainey acknowledged his understanding that Homan acted innocently in reliance on the instructions of a trusted supervisor. He was also aware to some extent that her act was not an uncommon practice at the credit union. Nevertheless, he explained that the claim of disparate treatment would be difficult to establish because other employees might be reluctant to appear before an arbitrator and testify about any unwitnessed signatures they had notarized. Furthermore, such testimony probably would not be enough to challenge the bonding company’s revocation of Homan’s bond because the rule about notarizing unwitnessed signatures is so widely known and accepted. Experienced counsel for the local union advised Representative Rainey that an award of damages against the credit union for allowing the situation to continue would be improbable. Under the circumstances, Rainey’s decision not to submit Homan’s grievance to arbitration was rational.