Arbitrator Agrees with Attorney Russell that Employer Can't Justify Final Warning Against Employee

Unions and employers generally agree the workplace should be free of harassment, violence or threats. But they can disagree when employers overreact, relying on ambiguous statements, hearsay or both to justify harsh discipline.

Unions can prevent a miscarriage of justice by forcing employers to prove with credible evidence that the disciplined employee actually violated a clear "zero tolerance" policy on harassment or threats.

In the attached case, the Employer could not do that. Attorney Ian Russell represented the Union. A worker claimed the Grievant made a shooting gesture. All other workers, who were deemed to be credible, denied that claim. The Arbitrator also rejected the Employer's claim that the Grievant made a racially insensitive reference to a "pointy white hat." The Employer therefore could not justify the Final Warning issued to the Grievant. This was not a case of an arbitrator exercising leniency, such as by ruling that the Grievant was punished too harshly. Rather, this respected, independent arbitrator ruled that the Employer failed to establish, as a matter of fact, two of the most incendiary allegations against the Grievant. She reduced the Final Warning to a simple reprimand, for a different ill-advised remark.