The Curious Case of Clock# 801

In months of recovering documents, I have been lucky to find some really interesting information. Plenty more went directly into the trash, if I didn’t reject it while initially vetting it when I was still at the plant. It is rare that I come across something that could be personally damaging to an employee. I can say after having reviewed literally thousands of documents I have never found anything resembling hidden impropriety. I have however reviewed a number of union grievances, where employees that broke the rules were offered their due process, and had the union dispute the companies disciplinary action. My gut response to many of these is to shake my head, or even feel the anger building as people who seem to have clearly broken the rules egergiously claimed to be innocent. Worse yet, often times, the company would bend on their ruling and allow those suspended or even terminated to get their well-paying positions back.

It is frivolous to get angry at the union, for this is the agreement, and everyone knows the game. Is it right to think it unfair when a district attorney defends a guilty man? I say no, because they are assuring that their client – guilty or not – is afforded the proper process. And if they happen to be released on a technicality…wouldn’t we all want to benefit from that same techniciality were we the ones in the same position, but innocent?

Then it comes to a number of documents that I found, over two different days, which I will share with you here. Once I collated them, I felt like there was a strong narrative that others might be interesting or entertaining. So I will attempt to pass no judgement, and leave that to you. After some thought, I have redacted the full name of the employee in question. As always, I did not redact the name of other managers, union reps, etc because as far as I am concerned that is a relevant piece of history and often times public record.

Clock# 801 had a respectable tenure even by the time the disciplinary folder I assembled starts it’s tale.

The first reports I have are from 1994. I do not have the reports of disciplinary action but it seems that by August of that year, excessive absenteeism (likely no call/no show on 8/29-8-31) resulted in a 5-day suspension. The union contested this with a grievance. It is unknown if this suspension was served, but only four months later additional days missed resulted in what is commonly known as ‘suspension pending termination’. The suspension was to take effect on December 19th, but a hearing on the 22nd determined that termination was the only solution. As expected, the union not only grieved the suspension, but also the termination.

If you were confused as to how you could defend yourself from not showing up to work for a few days, then doing it again a few months later, I’d consider that reasonable. This is a crime with clear evidence – doesn’t look like anyone disputed that perhaps 801 actually was at work, but no one noticed. So if you weren’t there, you weren’t there. And if you broke the rules, you pay the price. Right?

Appendix H of the union contract is referenced on all three of these grievances. Let’s have a glance at what that entails:

The jist of it seems to be that if you are suspended, or suspended pending termination, that you have the right to a hearing. Fair enough. But as we fast forward to just after the holidays, clock# 801 dodged a bullet and been reinstated.

It seems to have been a peaceful spring in 1995 without any further absenteeism issues for #801. But just as I was getting ready to get my high school diploma, things escalated quickly, and into a whole new dimension.

I’d say that if you felt like coming to work drunk, at least don’t have any alcohol on you. Then again I’m not in the habit of coming to work drunk either, so what do I know. But jokes aside, I’d have to advise #801, were she my client, certainly to refuse to allow the guard in the gate house or her supervisor in ovens (who authored this note) access to my personal affairs. It is kind of like refusing a breathalyzer, maybe it is better to let them be sure that you are guilty, but don’t volunteer the evidence. Even if you take an additional rip for the refusal, better that than to seal the deal for the prosecutorial powers. And even this early in the story I think we are all aware that you have a much better shot at acquittal at Acme than at a DUI stop.

So again – a 5 day suspension (pending termination) was handed down and again the company moved to break all ties with #801. This reached it’s peak with the telegram cropped at the top of this page (the entire telegram, along with everything else uncropped is available at the bottom of this post as a PDF). But the story trails off from here. Surely Appendix H once again went into effect and we know the outcome, because next we will jump ahead to 1998. I do not have records of these disciplinary reports (or the grievances that surely took place) – this is an excerpt from 1999 which we will touch on shortly. I share it here to fill in the blanks between 1995 and 1999 – #801 was a busy lady.

It seems the clock had reset and even a repeat offender like #801 was allowed a simple verbal warning for not showing up to work. Not surprising, this escalated to additional warnings and eventually being terminated AGAIN, only to be overturned and another ‘final warning’ (the first having come back in January 1995) was issued. I searched the union agreement for the appendix on double secret probation but didn’t find it – I’ll have to check again later.

Jokes aside – the defense given (which was not accepted by the company) is truly too much to handle.

And now we come to the final and most entertaining chapter. It doesn’t involve beer (damn!), it does indeed involve just not showing up for work. But the details are so wonderfully vivid, I will let them speak for themselves.

And we leave things there. Surely, once again the company made an attempt to terminate Ms. #801, and with even greater surety the union invoked the omnipresent and omnipotent Appendix H. A cat may have nine lives, perhaps #801 has more significance than a clock number. For those keeping score (or trying to):

• 9/28/94 – grieve suspension for excessive absenteeism
• 12/16/94 – grieve suspension for excessive absenteeism
• 12/27/94 – grieve termination
• 1/3/95 – settle 1994 grievances (“final warning”)
• 5/19/95 – hearing regarding alcohol possession
• 5/22/95 – termination for alcohol possession
• 4/30/98 – 3 day suspension for excessive absenteeism
• 7/18/98 – 5 day suspension for excessive absenteeism (“last chance”)
• 4/26/99 – 5 day suspension for absenteeism
• 5/1/99 – termination for absenteeism
• 5/20/99 – grievance for termination rejected
• 6/17/99 – reinstatement, (“last chance”)
• 11/12/99 – dropped microwave on toe
• 11/13/99 – sees doctor
• 11/23/99 – comes back with doctors note after no call/no show for 5 days
• 11/24/99 – meeting held regarding no call/no shows
• 11/25/99 – 5 day suspension for violation of “last chance”
• 11/29/99 – grieve 5 day suspension