CASE 81 Discharge for Job Abandonment?

(Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. and Teamsters Local 414)

The grievant in this matter was arrested and jailed for a period four days and therefore missed two regularly scheduled shifts. The grievant’s father called-in a reported his son would be off, and the Company discharged the grievant for job abandonment. The Company claimed that the grievant had to call-in and that a family member could not meet that obligation for him. The arbitrator found that there was no just cause for discharge in this matter, and sustained the grievance, ordering the grievant’s reinstatement, and back pay (for half of the time lost) and benefits. The grievant’s failure to cooperate in the subsequent investigation resulted in his loss of part of the back pay. The following excerpts from the arbitrator’s reasoning are offered: * * *
Apparently, the Company is reaching deep into the CBA to “Company Rules” and bringing both the word “personally” from Rule No. 4 and the phrase “before his scheduled starting time” from Rule No. 3 to Section 4.10 C. Although the Arbitrator is a firm adherent to the parole evidence rule of contract construction, the latter does not authorized the Company to create new contract language in smorgasbord fashion by picking and choosing words and phrases to suit its purposes as the need arises.

* * *
Closely related to the parol evidence rule and also buttressing the foregoing conclusion is the principle of arbitral common law that harsh, absurd, or nonsensical results are to be avoided in contract construction. . . . * * *
In the case at bar, the Company’s position requiring