1640 Thomas v. UAW GM Dept.

Thomas’s primary argument is that he was not the aggressor in the fight that led to his discharge; however there were no witnesses to confirm or deny who actually initiated the confrontation. Furthermore, even if mitigating circumstances could have been established, Thomas violated GM’s policy against the use of weapons in the workplace. It would have been imprudent to forego a settlement that allowed Thomas to enjoy a retirement benefit that he could not have qualified for otherwise. The parties’ subsequent negotiation of a Special Attrition Plan is irrelevant to the merits of this grievance settlement.