| Summary: The original arbitration case involved International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 59 (Union), which represented drivers for a beverage company. In this case, the Union filed a grievance regarding the termination of a driver, arguing that it was without cause. The beverage company countered, presenting evidence that the driver had been terminated based on its substance abuse policy as outlined in the parties' collective bargaining agreement employee handbook. It was the Union's position that the driver's positive drug test was the result of cocaine use that occurred at a party several days before the test and that he was neither impaired at work nor at the time the test was administered. Ultimately, the arbitrator found that the employer lacked just cause to terminate the driver.
The beverage company moved to vacate the award in federal court, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded authority by applying an incorrect standard. The beverage company contended that the arbitrator should have focused his analysis broadly, relative to "what should be the appropriate outcome for (the driver) in light of his positive test result" as opposed to whether there was just cause for the driver's authority. While the grounds to vacate a labor arbitration award are narrow, courts will vacate awards where it is clear an arbitrator has exceeded his authority under the contract or substituted his judgment as to what is "industrial justice."
|
| Impact(s): Massachusetts employers |
| Summary: This case involves an employer who rescinded a job offer after discovering the applicant maintained a record that contained convictions for "domestic incidents." These incidents included convictions involving the applicant's girlfriend for "strangulation/suffocation, fourth-degree sexual assault, battery, and criminal damage to property." He had applied for an Applications Specialist position where hundreds of his co-workers would be women. As such, the employer revoked the original employment offer.
Wisconsin prohibits discrimination on the basis of a conviction record. Exceptions to this include scenarios in which the employee or applicant has "been convicted of any felony, misdemeanor or other offense the circumstances of which substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular job." Such circumstances include "performing his services in private homes or other isolated settings" or "meeting one-on-one with clients in private settings."
The court held that the employer had unlawfully discriminated against the applicant in rescinding the offer based on his prior conviction record. The court determined that although applicant's criminal record reflected a tendency "to be physically abusive toward women in a live-in boyfriend/girlfriend relationship," it did not substantially correlate to the specific position for which he had applied.
|
| Impact(s): Wisconsin employers |
