Quantcast

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Olin worker re-hired after altercation near explosive scrap seeks back pay, benefits

Federal Court

BENTON – Olin Corporation scrap disposal worker James Jackson, one of two men the company fired over an altercation near explosive scrap, got his job back and now seeks back pay and benefits. 

The Machinists and Aerospace Workers sued Olin at U. S. district court in February, seeking to enforce arbitration in favor of its member, James Jackson. 

The union claimed Olin followed direction of arbitrator Gerard Fowler by reinstating Jackson but didn’t restore back pay and benefits as directed.

Olin answered with a counter claim seeking to vacate Fowler’s award. 

District Judge Phil Gilbert, whose senior status allows him to turn down cases he doesn’t want, chose to hear this one. 

The altercation occurred on Aug. 27, 2018, between Jackson and William Haake. 

Olin suspended them immediately, investigated the event, and discharged them. 

The union filed a grievance for Jackson and took it to arbitration, and the union and Olin agreed on Fowler as arbitrator. 

Fowler watched video of the event and held a hearing last August. 

He issued a decision this Jan. 9, finding Jackson ran a granulator and Haake handled and moved explosive materials. 

He found they walked towards each other and engaged in in a verbal altercation. He found that Jackson threw up his hands in an animated fashion, that Haake bumped Jackson’s chest and put hands on him, that Jackson told foreman Chad Stahlschmidt that Haake spit on him and that Haake told Stahlschmidt that Jackson placed drums so close to his forklift he couldn’t get into it. 

“The video shows Grievant driving past multiple open spaces on the concrete where he could have parked the drums to get to Haake’s forklift,” Fowler wrote. 

He found Jackson testified that he was wrong to park the drums next to the forklift and that it irritated Haake. 

“The company has terminated several employees for engaging in a verbal altercation, even where there is no physical contact,” Fowler wrote. 

“According to the testimony it is common knowledge that the company terminates all parties involved in an altercation. 

“An employee that engages in intentional conduct that leads to an altercation can be found to have incited a fight, even if the employee did not have the intent of instigating an altercation.” 

He cleared Jackson of misconduct. 

“This video evidence is simply not proof of Grievant instigating violence in the workplace,” Fowler wrote. 

He found no credible evidence to suggest Jackson could have anticipated Haake’s aggressive action. 

“Although Grievant’s actions may have set the stage for the confrontation there was no way he could have known that this would have occurred and that Haake would not simply reported the incident to a company manager,” he wrote. 

Fowler directed Olin to reinstate Jackson and restore back pay and benefits. 

Union counsel Janine Martin of Des Peres, Mo. sued Olin for back pay and benefits on Feb. 28. 

Sonni Nolan of Husch Blackwell in Clayton, Mo., filed Olin’s counter claim on March 26. 

She wrote that Fowler exceeded his authority under the bargaining agreement. 

She wrote that rules are critical when operating heavy equipment and working around explosive materials. 

She wrote that Fowler “exhibited manifest disregard of applicable law in a manner that substantially prejudiced the rights of Olin.” 

She wrote that the award lacked fundamental rationality and violated public policy. 

On April 2, Martin replied that the award drew its essence from the bargaining agreement and that Olin waived any challenge to it by reinstating Jackson.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News