The union has identified three responses to the arguments brought forward by the management of SpeedyPack Delivery during the arbitration against Mel James on Wednesday November 30. Management has argued that they have demonstrated progressive discipline throughout Mel James’ employment and the union has identified two flaws within this argument. When practicing progressive discipline, management in turn violated their own policy regarding unsafe driving. Management also made the assumption that Mel James had kept his second offense from management, which was not a rational presumption. Management also argued that allowing Mel James to work in the warehouse for the duration of his license suspension would have caused undue hardship on the company. However, it was clearly stated…show more content… However, SpeedyPack previously hired two drivers in order to keep up with deliveries, leaving the warehouse in dismay. Drivers would often work overtime in the warehouse on weekends to keep up with demand. Therefore, having James work in the warehouse may ease tensions on warehouse workers, reduce the overtime paid to drivers, and overall benefit the company.
In order to establish undue hardship, management cited a case between Waste Management Inc and Teamsters Local 419. However, in this case the arbitrator sided with the union, stating that the employer should be responsible for assigning the employee with alternate duties during his license suspension. The arbitrator states, “The grievances are accordingly allowed. The Grievors are entitled to compensation for all losses as a result of the Employer's refusal to allow them to load rear-pack trucks while their driver's licenses were under suspension” (Waste Management Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 419, 2004).
