1794 Stos v. McClurg, Local Union 1765

Case No: 1794


Stos alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on age after two substantially younger co-workers confronted him in a confined area and proceeded to yell at him so loudly that screaming was heard by other employees even 100 feet away from the incident.  Under these circumstances, Stos’s assertion that he felt fear and physical intimidation is credible, even without his additional assertion that the two co-workers had backed him into a gate.  Yet, despite the seriousness of the incident, the matter remained largely unaddressed.  The Company shoulders the blame for the failure to take appropriate action because management bears responsibility for the work environment in the plant.  Here, Stos reported the incident shortly after it occurred to two supervisors, but they failed to address the situation properly.  These supervisors clearly violated the Company’s own policy when they failed to notify Human Resources regarding Stos’s initial report that he was subjected to workplace hostility.

Stos filed a grievance requesting that the Company take “noticeable action” on his hostile work environment claim.  However, due to management’s failure to act promptly following Stos’s initial report, the time limit for imposing discipline upon his co-workers had run out.  Although it is disappointing that Stos’s grievance did not receive a more proactive response from the Local, we must conclude that reinstating his grievance seeking “noticeable action” will serve no useful purpose at this juncture.  Stos has now retired from the Company so no meaningful relief could be provided through the grievance process.