You Be The Judge Once More

[Rate This]

All that said, I don't think the firings held.

Both got their jobs back, but had to serve an unpaid suspension of a week. Both notified that further physical altercations would result in termination.

After a couple years of no disciplinary incidents, their work records would be cleared.

Generally, I would agree with this, but also make the caveat that the person who STARTED the fight should be singled out and perhaps serve a harsher punishment, even discharge. As with one of the earlier cases, I do not think you should be penalized for defending yourself. Only if the defender turned into an aggressor in the confrontation and it appeared he had the ability to stop (without the initiator gaining ground), then I think treating them the same would be appropriate.

RE: "The Union argued that, because of that failure to communicate with the employee in his own language, the discharge should not stand." If THE EMPLOYEE could not read the document, he/she should not have agreed to it until THEY sought out someone that could translate it into language they could understand. Lots of us have to do that when we get a legalese document, even though it's supposedly written in English.

A lot of places I think want to just get rid of both rather than investigating and determining blame. It’s easier and quicker.

[Turkeytop]

The Collective Agreement sets out that "The Company recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all members of the Bargaining Unit"

Therefore, it follows that any individual agreement between the Company and one of its employees is unenforceable. Handing a rule book to an employee does not constitute a binding agreement,

The Collective Agreement further says "The Company has the right to make reasonable rules and regulations and the Union has the right to challenge, through the grievance procedure, the application of such rules..

[km1125]

All that said, I don't think the firings held.

Both got their jobs back, but had to serve an unpaid suspension of a week. Both notified that further physical altercations would result in termination.

After a couple years of no disciplinary incidents, their work records would be cleared.

Generally, I would agree with this, but also make the caveat that the person who STARTED the fight should be singled out and perhaps serve a harsher punishment, even discharge. As with one of the earlier cases, I do not think you should be penalized for defending yourself. Only if the defender turned into an aggressor in the confrontation and it appeared he had the ability to stop (without the initiator gaining ground), then I think treating them the same would be appropriate.

RE: "The Union argued that, because of that failure to communicate with the employee in his own language, the discharge should not stand." If THE EMPLOYEE could not read the document, he/she should not have agreed to it until THEY sought out someone that could translate it into language they could understand. Lots of us have to do that when we get a legalese document, even though it's supposedly written in English.

A lot of places I think want to just get rid of both rather than investigating and determining blame. It’s easier and quicker.

True, but is it "right" that an employee, perhaps at no fault of their own, gets attacked by another employee and isn't able to defend themselves? If that were truly the case, then I'd think/expect that all employees should have the expectation that the company protects them from all other employees so they don't need to defend themselves.

[Rate This]

All that said, I don't think the firings held.

Both got their jobs back, but had to serve an unpaid suspension of a week. Both notified that further physical altercations would result in termination.

After a couple years of no disciplinary incidents, their work records would be cleared.

Generally, I would agree with this, but also make the caveat that the person who STARTED the fight should be singled out and perhaps serve a harsher punishment, even discharge. As with one of the earlier cases, I do not think you should be penalized for defending yourself. Only if the defender turned into an aggressor in the confrontation and it appeared he had the ability to stop (without the initiator gaining ground), then I think treating them the same would be appropriate.

RE: "The Union argued that, because of that failure to communicate with the employee in his own language, the discharge should not stand." If THE EMPLOYEE could not read the document, he/she should not have agreed to it until THEY sought out someone that could translate it into language they could understand. Lots of us have to do that when we get a legalese document, even though it's supposedly written in English.

A lot of places I think want to just get rid of both rather than investigating and determining blame. It’s easier and quicker.

True, but is it "right" that an employee, perhaps at no fault of their own, gets attacked by another employee and isn't able to defend themselves? If that were truly the case, then I'd think/expect that all employees should have the expectation that the company protects them from all other employees so they don't need to defend themselves.

The expectation is that you act like an adult and not get into a situation where this becomes remotely needed.

[Turkeytop]

The Company didn't want either of these guys back. No employer wants gang warfare in their plant

Had I been handling the case and had one of the younger, more progressive arbitrators, I too might have tried the language barrier argument. But this time they drew an older, very conservative, old school kind of arbitrator.

Nonetheless, he bought the argument. He ordered the grievor reinstated with no monetary compensation.. He placed him on probation for six months. In that time, if he committed any infraction at all, worthy of discipline, the Company had the right to fire him.

He directed the Company and the Union to have the Collective agreement translated and printed in every language used in the workplace. (I recall there were about 17.)

He directed the Union to translate his award into the language of the grievor.

Although he didn't order it, he recommended to the Company, that if they intended to rely on their rule book in future, they should have it translated into the various languages of the workplace.

[Robert Faygo]

Do I at least get a cookie for a good guess?

[Turkeytop]

The rest of the story.


As I said in the initial posting, I learned of this case when researching for a similar case I was handling. this was about a year later. I called the rep who had presented the case at arbitration just to clarify some of the details.

He answered my questions and then, after an exchange of pleasantries, but before ending the call I asked him "by the way. how is the guy making out?" He told me the guy is no longer working there. He went back to work for about two weeks, then got into another fight. That time he got fired and stayed fired.

[Deleted User 14896]

RE: "The Union argued that, because of that failure to communicate with the employee in his own language, the discharge should not stand." If THE EMPLOYEE could not read the document, he/she should not have agreed to it until THEY sought out someone that could translate it into language they could understand. Lots of us have to do that when we get a legalese document, even though it's supposedly written in English.

I'm not sure if perspective employees can be required to read, write and speak English (or French) in Canada.

But here in the states, an employer can require as a condition of employment that new hires be able to read and write and understand English. If the employer chooses to.

But the employer can't wait until after they are hired and then say " .. oh by the way .. ". If an employer didn't make that clear prior to hiring, then they are obligated to provide bilingual training, materials, plant and safety signs, etc.

[Turkeytop]

If fluency in English is a bona fide requirement of the job, the employer can insist on it. But they can't just use it a a barrier to certain ethnic groups to be hired.

[Deleted User 14896]

If fluency in English is a bona fide requirement of the job, the employer can insist on it. But they can't just use it a a barrier to certain ethnic groups to be hired.

Like I said, I'm not sure how your laws and regulations are over there.

But what I'm saying is true about over here.
As long as an employer states up front before hiring that the employee must read, write and understand English, the law is on their side. And like I said, if they DON"T state it before hiring, then the employer is legally required to accommodate the second language in all communications with the employee.

And the same holds true for other languages. A east Dearborn business can require that employees know Arabic. A restaurant in Chinatown can require staff to know Chinese. Etc.

[Turkeytop]

If my job requires that I answer the telephone or deal with written documents, the fluency in English are essential elements of the job. But if my job is piling steel doors on to a skid, then what difference does it make?

Before I retired, the secretary in our office was French Canadian. At the time she was hired, the job required that she be bilingual. She couldn't read or write a word of English. But her job interview was conducted in French and the Boss never even thought to ask her if she was bilingual. The office was in a majority French speaking community and she learned English on the job. She was a terrific secretary. She always managed to catch and correct my errors.

[Deleted User 14896]

If my job requires that I answer the telephone or deal with written documents, the fluency in English are essential elements of the job. But if my job is piling steel doors on to a skid, then what difference does it make?

Before I retired, the secretary in our office was French Canadian. At the time she was hired, the job required that she be bilingual. She couldn't read or write a word of English. But her job interview was conducted in French and the Boss never even thought to ask her if she was bilingual. The office was in a majority French speaking community and she learned English on the job. She was a terrific secretary. She always managed to catch and correct my errors.

To your first paragraph, should the company be required to have SOP's, JSA's, Lock Out Procedures (you worked in a steel mill, you know what I'm talking about) and other written communications in each language that everyone in the plant can speak? How safe would it be to have everyone running around talking in different languages on the radio? I'm not sure how long you've been out of the mill. It's a paper trail anymore. Especially Lock Out Tag Out Try Out.

My examples stem from court cases where someone got hurt or disciplined due to a language barrier. And the courts decided it was permissible to allow an employer to make sure everyone can understand each other. Requiring everyone to know one language is legal here due to safety concerns.

[Turkeytop]

For the record, I've never worked in a steel mill. My background was in electronics. But while the other guys were upgrading their skills, I was off doing things for my Union. I was becoming something of a dinosaur in the plant. Finally the Union recruited me to work full time in a staff position.

[Deleted User 14896]

For the record, I've never worked in a steel mill. My background was in electronics. But while the other guys were upgrading their skills, I was off doing things for my Union. I was becoming something of a dinosaur in the plant. Finally the Union recruited me to work full time in a staff position.

How did I get the impression you were an ET at a steel mill before becoming a full time union rep. My bad.

[Turkeytop]

How did I get the impression you were an ET at a steel mill before becoming a full time union rep. My bad.

Don't think I'd make it in a steel mill. 5' 6" 145 lb. One lame foot.