Arbitration Case: Discharge Of Peter Seichek :: essays research papers

Arbitration Case Discharge of asshole SeichekClosing StatementMr. Arbitrator, the termination of the employment of Mr. Seichek, by theWheelwright Corporation, was for his " quiescency on the job". Lets examine this positd reason - in the light(a) of the evidence provided by witness testimony andcontained within Mr. Seicheks personnel record.1) Mr. Holloday testified that he and Mr. White, the third cutting supervisor,observed Mr. Seichek, wearing his welding hood, sitting or leaning against theladder, "apparently" unconscious. Further, Mr. Holloday stated that he called to Mr.Seichek six or 7 times to get his fear.Mr. Seichek was then directed to accompany Mr. Holloday and Mr. White to theoffice. In the office, Mr. Holloday told Mr. Seichek that he had been caught quiescency before, and that his absenteeism was excessive, and therefore was beingsuspended.Mr. Arbitrator, they found Mr. Seichek at his survive station, wearing hisprotective clothing, waiting for a co-worker to return with demand parts, inorder to continue the job. With the welding hood on, they could not positivelydetermine that he was asleep, and six or seven calls to get his attention in thenoisy, factory atmosphere is not extreme.In reference to having been caught quiescency before, Mr. Holloday, testifiedthat on August 16,1982, that he found Mr. Seichek asleep in the response areaand on August 17, he was found asleep on a tool box near the time quantify. In both(prenominal) instances, Mr. Holloday awakened him, directed him to clock in and returnto work. Mr. Seichek complied with this direction.Mr. Holloday went on to state that these instances annoyed him, but since Mr.Seichek was on break and not "on the clock", that he (Holloday) should not anddid not issue a formal, verbal precedent or make any notation concerning theseincidents in Mr. Seicheks record.2) Mr. Lewis, the third shift steward, gave testimony that it has been acommon practice for employees t o sleep during their break periods and to once in a while doze on the job.This corresponds with Mr. Hollodays testimony concerning his decision not toissue a formal verbal warning to Mr. Seichek after he (Holloday) found himasleep during break.Of further note, Mr. Lewis stated that heard Mr. Holloday use an ethnic slurwhen referring to Mr. Seichek sleeping on the job. This raises a question as tothe objectivity of Mr. Holloday with regard to his lapse of Mr. Seichek.On the morning of December 3, 1982, Mr. Holloday notified Ms. Delores Lopez, thePersonnel Assistant, that he had suspended Mr. Seichek pending possibledischarge because he had found him sleeping on the job.