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

Arbitration Case Discharge of Peter SeichekClosing StatementMr. Arbitrator, the termination of the employment of Mr. Seichek, by theWheelwright Corporation, was for his "dormancy on the job". Lets examine thisstated reason - in the light of the evidence provided by witness testimony andcontained within Mr. Seicheks personnel record.1) Mr. Holloday testified that he and Mr. White, the third gaffe supervisor,observed Mr. Seichek, wearing his welding hood, sitting or leaning against theladder, "apparently" asleep. Further, Mr. Holloday stated that he called to Mr.Seichek six or seven times to get his attention.Mr. Seichek was and so directed to accompany Mr. Holloday and Mr. White to theoffice. In the office, Mr. Holloday told Mr. Seichek that he had been caughtsleeping before, and that his absenteeism was excessive, and therefore was beingsuspended.Mr. Arbitrator, they found Mr. Seichek at his work station, wearing hisprotective clothing, waiting for a co-worker to return with needed 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 sleeping before, Mr. Holloday, testifiedthat on August 16,1982, that he found Mr. Seichek asleep in the reception areaand on August 17, he was found asleep on a tool box near the time clock. In some(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 ensample 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 to sleep during their bre ak periods and tooccasionally 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 supervision 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.