When disciplining employees, employers may sometimes go beyond the traditional levels of discipline and implement additional measures on employees, such as coaching, performance plans, or additional training.  In the case of City of St. Paul and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 120, the employer implemented a lengthy suspension, but took an additional step that was rebuked by the arbitrator.

The facts of the case are fairly straightforward: a new employee started working for the St. Paul Public Works Department, and on one of her first days, the grievant approached her and informed her that his co-worker liked “hot chicks like [her],” in front of a group of older male employees. The new employee informed the grievant that she did not appreciate being spoken to in such a manner, and immediately reported his conduct to her supervisor.

An investigation took place, and while the grievant denied any recollection of the event, the investigator found that the conduct likely occurred in the way described by the complainant.  For his conduct, the grievant was issued a 30-day suspension.  In addition, the grievant was informed that he would no longer be able to punch in at the office where the complainant worked, and he would be required to punch in at an alternative location on the Public Works campus.

Arbitrator Greg Failor found that the conduct likely occurred in the way determined by the investigator, and provided some background on his perspective on the concept of “just cause.” He states, “[T]he role of the arbitrator in disciplinary cases is not to second guess the employer’s decision or substitute his or her judgment for that of the employer if the employer’s decision is reasonably made after the consideration of all relevant factors.”  With that, he found the employer’s decision to issue the grievant a 30-day suspension to not be outside the bounds of reasonableness.

The union, however, also contested the employer’s decision to bar the grievant’s access to the street maintenance building.  The City argued that it had the absolute right to reassign the grievant to a new job location under the collective bargaining agreement.  The arbitrator stated that, because the reassignment was in direct response to the interaction he had with the complainant, it needed to be evaluated within the discipline standards of the contract.  In his assessment of the action, Arbitrator Failor found the “isolation” of the grievant to be punitive in nature, rather than corrective.

As to the City’s concerns of further adverse interactions between the grievant and the complainant, the arbitrator stated that the City could issue a directive that the grievant was not to initiate any direct contact with the complainant without barring him from a building.  The arbitrator found the restriction, as it was, to be in violation of the just cause standard.

This was a unique decision on both counts, and one to keep in mind for future discipline of employees.  If you, or your organization need assistance in the investigation or discipline of employees, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.