Threats and violence

Coyne was subject to discharge under the Company’s policy of zero tolerance to violent conduct as the result of her repeated threats against co-workers. The Union had no contractual basis for insisting on her reinstatement.

Shepard insists that his discharge could not have been sustained because he completed the task assigned to him. The record demonstrates, however, that Shepard was discharged for his angry and disruptive behavior towards his supervisor in response to the assignment, rather than for a failure to complete any particular task. ...

There is no evidence that Nafus’ status as a Beck objector, or his public expressions of dissatisfaction with the Union influenced the Representative’s decision in any way. Nafus’ refusal to sign a waiver that would allow Management to confirm his completion of an anger management program violated the terms of ...

Company representatives had counseled Bryant about his aggressive behavior in the plant on two prior occasions. When Bryant was observed engaging in aggressive and offensive behavior on May 26, 2005, the Company invoked the rule that threatening a fellow employee is a dischargeable offense and terminated Bryant’s employment. It was ...

The reinstatement agreement that Local 1405 obtained for Lawrence in 1999 was in all likelihood a better result than could have been achieved through arbitration. Lawrence was terminated a second time when a co-worker alleged that he posed a threat to his fellow employees, an allegation that turned out to ...

Although the Company’s charge that Medley used abusive or threatening language in the workplace was based on highly contested testimony, Representative Doty provided copies of eleven arbitration decisions demonstrating that umpires in this jurisdiction give substantial weight to the employer’s conclusion that such allegations are credible. Based on these precedents, ...

Pugh’s posts on Instagram suggested that he was on the verge of committing some kind of violent act. The company’s decision to discharge him was reasonable in this situation. The union attempted to negotiate Pugh’s reinstatement pursuant to a last chance agreement, but these efforts were unsuccessful. It was rational ...

We accept the testimony of appellants’ witnesses that appointed representatives regularly campaigned in the plant and that management tolerated the activity. We do not regard the employer’s failure to respond more aggressively to complaints about this campaigning as evidence of the kind of active interference that would require an election ...

An argument could be made that Williams was entitled to a warning before being terminated for pure speech unaccompanied by any violent act. There was no other evidence of misconduct, except for the alarming content of the statement Williams presented to Labor Relations on August 28, 2013. Williams’s letter presents ...