Copyright ©2010 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall
general allegations that these prerequisites were lacking Mr. Cox may well be capable of proof, but I
have no alternative in the absence of being furnished such proof except to find that the grievant was
“sufficient” in his qualifications. He was, consequently, improperly deprived of a promotional 90-day
1997) wrote Chief Engineer Ulin on September 29, 1995 (Company Exhibit #2) outlining his
interpretation of Section 10 (as not applying to employees on standby) and this letter was read to all
1997), showing that on at least these occasions (four) in addition to the February 14–20, 1997
1) a March 10th verbal warning in writing for his job performance being “still too low in
2) an April 28th written verbal warning for “defective work” and “carelessness”;
3) a May 4th written warning for “defective work” and “carelessness”;
4) a May 6th written warning for “defective work”; and
5) a May 19th three-day suspension for “defective work,” “quantity” and “carelessness.”
An attachment to his employee warning notice of June 17th, signed by his foreman, informed
Mr. Ricci that “evidently you have failed to realize the seriousness of your past offenses. Just seven
(7) days from your three (3) days off, the results of your quality has reached final inspection, totally
unacceptable . . .” and he was told that his services were consequently terminated as of 3:30 P.M. on
