Opinion ID: 2976994
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Arbitration Decision

Text: On December 4, 2004, the arbitrator ruled on Gibson’s 2003 dismissal. The arbitrator explained that “the [Safety] Committee decided to discharge the grievant for safety violations alone,” J.A. at 198 (Arb. Dec. at 11), but noted that “the members of the Safety Committee were aware of the [sexual-harassment] charge and considered its implications,” id. Later on in the decision, the arbitrator also noted the tension between Shelly’s statements indicating that Gibson was terminated in part for the sexual harassment and the fact that Gibson was terminated before Gales’s sexualharassment investigation concluded. Ultimately, the arbitrator determined that Gibson “was terminated without just cause.” J.A. at 202 (Arb. Dec. at 15). In reaching this conclusion, the arbitrator first considered the sexual-harassment allegations and concluded that no just cause supported Gibson’s termination for his comments and actions. The arbitrator then moved on to the safety violation and concluded that it was an isolated incident that Shelly never officially labeled as “serious.” Thus, the arbitrator awarded Gibson reinstatement along “with full back pay, benefits, and seniority to May 16, 2003.” J.A. at 214 (Arb. Dec. at 29).