Case 10-1
Summary
Sandy Clark has been an employee of the Healthy Meals Company for the past 10 years with an excellent
work record and no complaints about her work performance. Her job responsibilities had recently
changed, and she was assigned to the night shift, where she would clean and sanitize the equipment used
to mix and dispense sauce for the meals. Sandy was trained by an experienced crew member who had
been performing the work for the past 3 years and instructed of the proper protocol to clean the machines.
This included turning off the equipment and locking it before using a sponge pad to clean inside of the
vat. She was able to demonstrate to the person who trained her that she could adequately demonstrate the
duties of the position.
Sandy argued that discharge was too severe as her work performance over a 10-year period was
acceptable and she had never received any warning that her job performance was unacceptable. She noted
that she was following the procedures that she was taught by another employee and that no one with the
company had ever told her that the procedure she followed was incorrect. She believed that progressive
discipline should be used and not termination. Ultimately, Sandy was terminated for “willfully violating
the company’s proper safety procedures.”
Analysis
The main point of contention in this case is whether or not the actions by Sandy Clark warrant
termination. If Sandy had not obtained any prior written infractions and had done her job in a satisfactory
manner up to this point, this may be a case of wrongful discharge. Should “just cause” be required for
Sandy’s termination, it would have to be determined whether or not Sandy exhibited a willful violation.
Questions
1. Do the facts in this case indicate that Sandy Clark was guilty of a willful violation of the company’s
safety rules? Explain your answer.
Based upon the facts in this case, it appears that the company may have overstated its allegation that
2. What possible corrective action could the company take as an alternative to discharge?
The company’s management must share some responsibility in regard to this accident by not assuring that
Sandy was properly trained. A practice of training being conducted by employees who have been
3. If Sandy is represented by a labor union with a current labor agreement or contract stating that
“employees shall only be discharged for just cause,” how could this affect her termination?
If Sandy is represented by a labor union with a current labor agreement, the union would typically appeal
her discharge through a negotiated grievance procedure. Given the facts in this case, the union would
most likely pursue her grievance through an arbitration procedure in an attempt to overturn her discharge
1. Did employee knew of the company’s policy?
2. Is company’s policy reasonable?
3. Did the company investigate to determine that the employee violated the policy?
4. Was the investigation was fair and objective?
5. Does substantial evidence exist of the employee’s violation of the policy?
6. Has the company consistently applied the policy to all employees?
7. Is the level of discipline reasonable and proportional? (Does the punishment fit the crime?)
4. What particular mitigating factors or circumstances in this case should be considered in determining
whether or not her termination is for “just cause?”
An employer should not assume that a serious incident occurring such as happening in this case
automatically justifies summary discharge. A labor arbitrator or any other adjudicator will expect to see
Case 10-2
Summary
Gene Roberts works as the chief operator in the Sunflower, Arkansas refinery for the Pearl Refining
Company. At one point, the International Refinery Workers Union had attempted to unionize, and
Roberts attended one of the meeting and voted; however, it is not known how he voted. Pearl also
operates a crude oil storage facility in Northern Louisiana, 4 hrs. from the refinery. At the crude oil
facility, leadership had recently been made aware there were shortages in the delivery of the crude oil.
The manager of the refinery, Dusty Conway, wanted to send Roberts to determine what was going wrong
in the delivery of the crude oil.
Analysis
The Pearl Refining Company case addresses the differences between constructive discharge and wrongful
discharge. In this case, the question is whether or not it was a part of Chief Operator Gene Roberts’s job
to determine who in the facility was delivering water instead of crude oil. In this case, Roberts chose not
to do the task asked of him due to the potential for this to create conflict with others. Management
considered his reluctance to do the task as a willful resignation from his position.
Questions
1. What are the differences between “constructive discharge” and “wrongful discharge?”
A wrongful discharge occurs when an employee is terminated for an illegal reason, either due to a
2. What factors would the NLRB most likely consider in its investigation as to whether or not Roberts’s
termination was a constructive discharge?
In considering all the facts of the case, the NLRB may find that Gene Roberts was a victim of
3. What elements should be proven to show that Roberts was “constructively discharged?”
Two elements should be proven to establish a “constructive discharge.” First, the burdens imposed upon
4. What is the difference between economic strikes and unfair labor practice strikes?
Both types of strikes are for a lawful purpose with strikers continuing as employees, but there are
different rights to reinstatement to their jobs based upon the type of strike. If the reason for a strike is to
5. What rights do economic strikers and unfair labor practice strikers have to reinstatement?
“Economic strikers” retain their status as employees but the employer is able to replace them
permanently. If the employer already has hired legitimate permanent replacements to fill the positions that