Mr. Dullard was a groundskeeper at King James State College, who was given multiple chances to correct unacceptable behavior. In 1987 after an unexcused absence, administrators drafted a “last chance agreement”; its terms included that if there was another unexcused absence or misconduct, he could be discharged. In 1988, another incident resulted in a “settlement agreement” stating that the “last chance agreement” continued in effect. In 1990, another unexcused absence resulted in Mr. Dullard’s dismissal. He and the union filed a grievance, to be arbitrated. The union argues that the previous agreements had two-year time limits, whereas the college argues that there was no time limit.
The college is not correct. The wording of the agreements might have caused confusion.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Grievance Procedure and Resolution".
It is inadvisable to draft an agreement that is in contradiction of the union contract (Dessler, 2011). The union contract specifies two-year terms. Neither subsequent agreement specifies the length of the term. Therefore, while it is likely that the company intended the agreements to be permanent, the agreements do not specify. In fact, the “settlement agreement” statement that the “last chance agreement” remains in effect implies that without such statement, the “last chance agreement” would expire. The “settlement agreement” did not specify for how much longer the “last chance agreement” would remain in effect, making reasonable Mr. Dullard’s belief that it lasted for two years. Also, the college’s claim of dismissal for misconduct is weakened by the first agreement, which calls unexcused absences and misconduct two different things.
Consider the possible harm from such confusion. The college can draft a new “final last chance agreement” with a specified permanent duration. But if Mr. Dullard sues, stating he was unaware that there was no time limit or that an unexcused absence was the same as misconduct, a jury might find in his favor. Therefore, given the possible confusion over wording of the previous agreements, Mr. Dullard should be given one more chance. The next agreement should be perused by the college’s lawyers to ensure that its terms are airtight.
- Dessler, G. (2011). Human Resource Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
