Arbitration Case: Discharge Of Peter Seichek
Closing Statement
Mr. Arbitrator, the termination of the employment of Mr. Seichek, by the
Wheelwright Corporation, was for his "sleeping on the job". Lets examine this
stated reason - in the light of the evidence provided by witness testimony and
contained within Mr. Seichek's personnel record.
1) Mr. Holloday testified that he and Mr. White, the third shift supervisor,
observed Mr. Seichek, wearing his welding hood, sitting or leaning against the
ladder, "apparently" asleep. Further, Mr. Holloday stated that he called to Mr.
Seichek six or seven times to get his attention.
Mr. Seichek was then directed to accompany Mr. Holloday and Mr. White to the
office. In the office, Mr. ...
Want to read the rest of this paper?
Join Essayworld today to view this entire essay
and over 50,000 other term papers
|
to having been caught sleeping before, Mr. Holloday, testified
that on August 16,1982, that he found Mr. Seichek asleep in the reception area
and on August 17, he was found asleep on a tool box near the time clock. In
both instances, Mr. Holloday awakened him, directed him to clock in and return
to work. Mr. Seichek complied with this direction.
Mr. Holloday went on to state that these instances annoyed him, but since Mr.
Seichek was on break and not "on the clock", that he (Holloday) should not and
did not issue a formal, verbal warning or make any notation concerning these
incidents in Mr. Seichek's record.
2) Mr. Lewis, the third shift steward, gave testimony that it has been a
common practice for employees to sleep during their break periods and to
occasionally doze on the job.
This corresponds with Mr. Holloday's testimony concerning his decision not to
issue a formal verbal warning to Mr. Seichek after he (Holloday) found him
asleep during break.
Of further note, ...
Get instant access to over 50,000 essays.
Write better papers. Get better grades.
Already a member? Login
|
could not do much without the parts that Stone,
another employee, had gone for. He also stated that he was drowsy because of
the medication he had been taking and didn't remember just which or how much
medication he had taken that day or night.
Mr. Seichek further testified that he had asked Dr. Jones for medication, not
only to relieve the pain from his injury, but to permit him to continue to work
because of his absenteeism situation. This statement is not contradicted. Mr.
Seichek also stated that when he responded to Mr. Holloday's call, in the
basement, that he had tried to explain to Mr. Holloday that he was under
medication that made him sleepy. Mr. Holloday told him that it ...
Succeed in your coursework without stepping into a library.
Get access to a growing library of notes, book reports,
and research papers in 2 minutes or less.
|
CITE THIS PAGE:
Arbitration Case: Discharge Of Peter Seichek. (2008, October 10). Retrieved April 23, 2024, from http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Arbitration-Case-Discharge-Of-Peter-Seichek/91239
"Arbitration Case: Discharge Of Peter Seichek." Essayworld.com. Essayworld.com, 10 Oct. 2008. Web. 23 Apr. 2024. <http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Arbitration-Case-Discharge-Of-Peter-Seichek/91239>
"Arbitration Case: Discharge Of Peter Seichek." Essayworld.com. October 10, 2008. Accessed April 23, 2024. http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Arbitration-Case-Discharge-Of-Peter-Seichek/91239.
"Arbitration Case: Discharge Of Peter Seichek." Essayworld.com. October 10, 2008. Accessed April 23, 2024. http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Arbitration-Case-Discharge-Of-Peter-Seichek/91239.
|
Save
Report