Administrator – Page 3

201: Preparation for Arbitration

Highlights: One last attempt at settlement before resort to arbitration, commonly known as “step three and a half”‘, has come into wide-spread usage. At this stage the Parties are more realistic and tend to use their best efforts to conciliate differences. The three aspects to consider when preparing for arbitration: framing of the issues; witnesses; and the evidence. Summary Considerations Objectively appraise the case. Select credible witnesses who can survive cross-examination. Define the issue and ascertain the appropriate remedy. Outline the case presentation with an eye always on the issue. Consider the ramifications if the case is lost.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	59 Minutes
Moderator	James Scearce, Labor Arbitrator, former Director of the FMCS
Management’s View	James Jaffe, former V.P. for Industrial Relations, Parke Davis & Co.
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Uncategorized

112: Control of Drink and Drug Abuse

Highlights: Part I: Kelsey-Hayes and the UAW have formed a joint partnership to help troubled employees. Traditional progressive discipline does not cure the root of the problem causing infractions. The program involves a Center for Counseling and Guidance which functions much like a medical department. The theory behind Union-Management substance abuse programs is the common goal of helping the troubled employee. Part II: To be effective, rules should not be drafted restrictively. For example, “possession of marijuana” is better than “smoking marijuana”. Evidence to support a charge of drunkenness can be based upon Management’s observations of impairment, odor, etc. An employee who reports for work and is sent home for being under the influence results in an unexcused absence. Drinking on premises is most serious, but is frequently burdened by evidentiary problems. Being intoxicated or “high” on drugs is frequently viewed as serious a matter as bringing firearms into the plant.

Format	Part I is a three member panel discussion; Part II is a dialog
Length	59 Minutes
Moderator	Joseph Murphy, former V.P. of the American Arbitration Association
Management’s View	Joseph Goodsir, former Dir. for Labor Relations, Kelsey-Hayes Corp.
Labor’s View	Patrick Greathouse, former Vice President of the UAW
Other Experts	Charles Ipavec, Labor Arbitrator Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Uncategorized

111: E.E.O.C. and its Affect on Discipline

Highlights: The administration of discipline is affected by federal and state laws through which minority groups may appeal the finality of arbitration awards adversely affecting the group. Unions and Managements should resolve the issues at an early stage to assuage the need to resort to an Agency. How does a civil rights Agency view the disciplinary process? Discrimination cases arising out of administration of the labor agreement frequently create grave problems. Management must consider discipline in terms of the reasonableness of the penalty as well as the spirit of anti-discrimination laws. Religion: Work hours re-scheduling must be accommodated. Sex: There are very few cases where a woman can’t do a man’s job. Race: While not so much a problem area today in discipline, it remains problematic in hiring and promotion.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	58 Minutes
Moderator	Robert Pizarski, former Director of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission
Management’s View	Robert Baily, Management Consultant
Labor’s View	Carolyn Forrest, former Administrative Assistant to the President, UAW

Uncategorized

110: Careless Work and Inefficiency

Highlights: Careless work is defined as work performed by an employee who is knowledgeable, skilled and able, but engages in unacceptable job performance without premeditation. In the case of premeditation, the activity would be chargeable as sabotage. Aspects Underlying the Charge: Management has a duty to supply adequate tools, parts, training, and a work conducive environment. Indicators of carelessness are: procedural shortcuts, neglect to check production readiness, and failure to check for scrap. Appropriate Penalties An isolated case ordinarily does not warrant discharge. A worker whose carelessness can result in substantial damage or harm may not be susceptible to progressive discipline measures. Incompetent Work Incompetent work is not subject to progressive discipline because the worker simply cannot do the job. The solution for incompetence is simply job removal.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	59 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Uncategorized

109: Falsification and Untrue Records

Highlights: The charge centers on the supplying of false information or reports, records, etc. The violation may be either a commission or an omission. The Employment Application: Employment applications usually contain a statement that if false information is supplied, the employee will be subject to discharge. During the probationary period, Management may discharge an employee without showing cause; therefore, the discussion centers on issues arising after the probationary period has expired. Falsifying Time Records: Falsifying time records (one’s own or another’s) is a form of theft for which the penalty is discharge. There is a need to show deliberation, not mere negligence, such as forgetting to punch in or out. Miscellany of Acts: In production counts involving work standards, the charge may be leveled even if no actual loss is encountered. Falsification of receipts subjects the employee to discharge.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	60 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Uncategorized

108: Insubordination

Highlights: Insubordination constitutes non-conformance with proper requirements expected and demanded by Management. Insubordination involves established violation of rules, per se; but is mainly confined to unacceptable personal conduct and work refusal. Unacceptable personal attitudes include: Verbal Abuse: Certain shop talk may be acceptable. However, expletives against Management may be chargeable. It is possible to degrade and insult using proper English. Work refusals followed by work performance in a reasonable time are generally not chargeable. Failure to follow an order is generally chargeable.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	60 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Uncategorized

107: Violence and Assault

Highlights: The charge relates to physical acts, most commonly fighting. The basis for the charge emanates from Management’s duty to provide a safe workplace. The industrial relations definition differs from the legal definition. Seriousness of the charge depends upon the circumstances. Examples: An attack with a weapon is a discharge offense. Threat of use of a weapon in self-defense may be chargeable depending upon the reasonableness. General threats would usually strain credulity that they are directed to any one specific person. Provoking a fight between two others is chargeable. A provocateur who is himself attacked and who does not fight back is chargeable. General Considerations: Management’s responsibility to the workforce and the integrity of its product demand it stop violent behavior. The investigation must be complete, but the combatants are frequently the worst witnesses. The individual assaulted can be charged where his/her response is an assault itself.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	59 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Uncategorized

106: Theft

Highlights: The charge is a serious matter that is an exception to the principle of progressive discipline. The act of theft, rather than the value of the article taken, is the basis for the charge. Regardless of value of the article, discharge is warranted on the first offense. There are cases of “petty theft” involving nominal acts which do not in themselves justify discharge, but this is an exceptional situation. Investigation is critical. The accused is usually suspended pending the investigation. Propriety of Searches Management has a right to inspect articles coming into and out of its premises. Entrapment and Surveillance Entrapment occurs when Management has induced an employee to act and then is penalized for the action. Cameras are permissible, but evoke emotive responses.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	55 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Uncategorized

105: General Conduct II

Highlights: Grooming Rules concerning grooming are generally subject to changing appropriateness as society changes. In the area of safety, rules relating to protective articles are not properly related to more permissive grooming rules. Employees dealing with the public project an image for the employer which Management may protect. Sleeping The phrasing of the rule is important: a rule against sleeping may not cover an employee who claims to have “only had his eyes closed”. The commonality among sleeping offenses is being off the job. Therefore, a charge of being off the job, aggravated by being asleep, may be supportable. Gambling Generally a blanket prohibition is too broad where there is no money being waged and off or break time is involved. In circumstances of widespread activity, Management must still be reasonable in imposing curbs.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	59 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Uncategorized

104: General Conduct I

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	55 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW