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

Arbitration lawsuit Discharge of Peter SeichekClosing StatementMr. Arbitrator, the termination of the employment of Mr. Seichek, by theWheelwright Corporation, was for his " pauseing on the job". Lets examine thisstated actor - in the light of the evidence provided by witness testimony andcontained at heart Mr. Seicheks personnel record.1) Mr. Holloday testified that he and Mr. White, the third shift supervisor,observed Mr. Seichek, wearing his conjoin lout, sitting or leaning against theladder, "apparently" unawakened. Further, Mr. Holloday stated that he called to Mr.Seichek vi or sevener cartridge holders to get his attention.Mr. Seichek was then directed to come after 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 ground Mr. Seichek at his work station, wearing hisprotective clot hing, waiting for a confrere to go on with needed parts, inorder to continue the job. With the welding hood on, they could non positivelydetermine that he was asleep, and six or seven calls to get his attention in thenoisy, factory atmosphere is non extreme.In reference to having been caught sleeping before, Mr. Holloday, testifiedthat on August 16,1982, that he comprise Mr. Seichek asleep in the reception areaand on August 17, he was found asleep on a tool box near the time clock. Inboth 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 warning 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 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 cultural 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.