7/28/2019 Labor Relations Cst

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-relations-cst 1/2

Labor Relations Case Study

Elective 2

The City of Eugene, Oregon has a collective bargaining agreement in place with the International

Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), representing the terms and conditions of the work relationship between the city and its’ firefighting employees. The agreement includes language

that articulates a procedure for employees to grieve decisions made by the fire fighters’ managersand the city regarding wages, hours, and working conditions. These categories are broadly

defined in the contract. The contract also specifically articulates a progressive discipline policy, a

set of steps to be undertaken when an employee acts inappropriately or when s/he is performing

 below expectations.

The employment contract has been in place for over two years. During that time, one particular 

fire fighter, Peter Conant, in the Westside Fire District, has been a difficult employee. On several

occasions, Peter has been openly disrespectful of the management of the Fire Department and the

District leadership. He has made disparaging remarks about Department policy, and has been

critical in front of others about decisions made by the District manager and the fire house

Commander. Peter has been spoken to on two separate occasions about his attitude and his

willingness and ability to be a “team player”. These conversations have been documented in noteform, and have been kept in the Commander’s files.

Peter’s behaviors, however, have not improved based on these discussions. Peter continues to act

out, including one instance in which Peter refused to do his share of chores around the firehouseduring his regular rotation of duties, claiming that the chores he was asked to do were demeaning

and undignified. Peter also claimed that he had been given the worst of the chores in the

firehouse as retaliation for his outspoken beliefs. An independent committee was formed to

investigate these accusations, a group which included a union representative. The accusations

were found to be without basis in fact, a finding which angered Peter. He claimed that the

committee was “covering up” discriminatory and harassing behavior on the part of the station

chief, and that the entire department was out to get him.

One Saturday evening, the Westside crew was called on a fire response to a house in the lower 

west hills of the city. When they arrived, they found the upper portion of the house engulfed in

smoke. The lower portion of the house appeared to be unaffected so far, but upon trying to enter,

the team found the door locked. After shouting and pounding on the door and wall, and receiving

no answer, the entry team composed of three firefighters including Peter, broke the door down

and proceeded up the stairs to the second level. The smoke was dense and the men had their masks and air tanks on and operating. A room-to-room search revealed two men, one in each of 

two different rooms, both passed out. Peter quickly grabbed one of them and carried him to

safety outside, where the paramedics were able to attend to him. Peter observed one of his

 partners bring the other man out in similar fashion. The source of the smoke, it was later learned,was a cigarette butt that had fallen from one of the mens’ hand after he had fallen asleep, and

which had started a smoking fire on a thick carpet under the man’s bed. Subsequent investigationwould reveal that both men had been partying heavily that evening, and the question of controlled

substances could not be ruled out.

The watch commander on site ordered the team back into the house to search for other people. At

this point, Peter declared that everyone had already been rescued, and that there was no point in

going back into the house for a room-to-room search. The commander insisted, telling Peter that

such a search was standard procedure, and that Peter knew that. Peter and the commander 

argued, and Peter ultimately refused to return to the house, saying that this was just another tactic

7/28/2019 Labor Relations Cst

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-relations-cst 2/2

in the department’s campaign against him. Other firefighters conducted the search, while Peter 

stood aside and made derisive comments about them. No other people were found in the house,

and the fire department contained the situation.

In the days that followed, an investigation was launched by the department. The findings werethat Peter had engaged in egregious and unwarranted insubordination, and had compromised the

chain of command. In addition, Peter’s blatant disregard of standard procedure could have placedinnocent lives in danger. The department was left with no alternative but to fire Peter. This, of 

course, infuriated Peter, who immediately filed a grievance of “wrongful termination” against the

fire department and the city.

Under the terms of the employment contract, the resolution of such a claim could be handled only

 by a process known as final and binding arbitration. Under this premise, a hearing would be

called before an independent arbitrator, licensed under the American Arbitration Association,

who would act as a judge as both sides presented their version of the facts. Utilizing this material

and the terms of the contract itself, the arbitrator would have thirty days after the conclusion of 

the hearing in which to render an opinion regarding the nature of the claim. This opinion, in

written form, would be considered the final word on the case, and would not be eligible for 

appeal in any forum.

Questions :

You are the arbitrator in this case. Based on the facts noted above, you must do the following:

1. Decide whether the department acted properly, or if, as Peter claims, he was wrongfully

terminated for his actions.

2. Write a one-page opinion document, stating your opinion and using the data noted above

to defend your opinion.