There's been news about Ford Motor Co. firing some employees over alleged thefts of food items at snack kiosks, when those employees maintain they did indeed pay for the items.
As the Detroit Free Press reported, Nick Nabozny, 38, of Harrison Township was fired in April from his assembly line job at Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne — where Ford builds the Bronco SUV and Ranger pickup — after being accused of stealing a bag of Doritos and some Ritz crackers, all valued for less than $8. Nabozny worked for Ford for nine years and he said he's never stolen anything.
“There was no talking to me, no review, no 'You’re a great employee, been here for nine years … was it a mistake?' 'Yes.' 'OK let’s get it paid for and go back to work,' " Nabozny told
the Detroit Free Press. "No. Immediate termination.”
The UAW has filed a grievance on behalf of Nabozny, arguing he is innocent and demanding Ford reinstate his job.
While many people find it shocking to be fired instantly over something that seems so minor, employment experts say there are actually quite a few reasons employers could fire you that you may not know about.
"The reasons for which you can be fired depends significantly on whether you are a union-represented or non-union employee," said Marick Masters, a business professor and union expert at Wayne State University. "Unions negotiate grievance procedures which generally require a just cause reason for disciplining or discharging a represented employee. But there may be considerable latitude in determining just cause. A lot hinges on the nature of the union contract language and historical practice in the workplace setting."
Union membership and just cause
In Nabozny's case he has some protections because he is in a labor union, which has a contract with the automaker. Under the current UAW-Ford contract, Article IV, Ford has the right to terminate employees for just cause provided it does not violate contract terms or laws. It says in imposing discipline for a current offense, the company will not take into account any prior infraction that occurred more than 18 months previously.
In relation to Nabozny's case and some others too, Ford spokesman Dave Tovar told the Detroit Free Press on July 9 that Ford and Aramark were reviewing the functionality of the kiosks in Ford U.S. facilities for any possible problems.
Harley Shaiken, a labor expert and professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, said firing an employee over allegedly stealing a few dollars worth of food items is "equivalent to erasing the distinction between a misdemeanor and a felony and then applying capital punishment."
"Fortunately one of the real benefits of union representations is a workers' committee person can represent that worker in cases like this and take the case through a number of steps including, if necessary, arbitration," Shaiken told the Detroit Free Press. "These checks and balances in the workplace make fairness a right and seek to insure there is not arbitrary justice."
Masters did give the reminder that an employee can be terminated while a grievance procedure is unfolding.
"An employer could terminate an employee for making threatening statements, with the employee filing a grievance," Masters said. "If the grievance goes to arbitration, the arbitrator, depending on the facts and contract, may find that the alleged or demonstrated 'threats' did not justify dismissal."
The arbitrator could reinstate an employee and order the person receive back pay, Masters said, noting that the arbitrator’s ruling is usually the final judgment in the matter.
"Ford has permanent umpires (arbitrators) who hear and decide grievances by employees," Masters said. "The more at-will the situation, such as where employers deal with executives and managers and other non-union employees, the greater the latitude in employer’s discretion."
'At will' employees face a harsher path
If an employee does not have a contract or union and is considered an "at will" employee, the employer has greater discretion as to reasons for termination, Masters said.
According to Cornell Law School, "The employment-at-will doctrine is an employment law practice in which an employer and employee agree there is no set period of employment. Additionally, the employment may be terminated either by employer or employee at any time and for almost any reason."
The key is "almost" because there are exceptions that protect employees. Masters noted that there are statutes that prohibit discrimination against employees on various grounds, such as race, religion, and age. Other federal and state laws may also restrict the at-will doctrine, including civil service procedures in government. In some cases, courts have made other exceptions to the doctrine.
"An alternative approach to an at-will employment relationship that employers may adopt would be a 'just cause' basis for discharge and discipline," Masters said. "Few employers do this without a union."
There are several plausible causes for termination, according to Masters:
Theft
Stealing is a plausible cause for termination, unless the gravity of the infraction is minor and otherwise remedial.
Social media posts
Employees may also be terminated for posting things on social media that reflect badly on the employee, the company, or customers. But an employer’s action can be grieved — which is a formal filing of a complaint against an action such as termination — and potentially submitted to an arbitrator for a decision on whether the discharge or disciplinary action is sustainable under the union contract.
Having a bad attitude
Employers may fire employees for bad attitudes. Masters said as an example: being disrespectful or unfriendly to a customer or ignoring co-workers or customers when such would be inappropriate. He said attitude deals with the demeanor a person exhibits while at work in interacting with employees, customers, vendors and supervisors.
Incompetence
Employee cannot perform their job. Masters defined it as an "inability to perform routine asks or duties associated with a position," such as handling basic commercial transactions. Or not able to record, input or report data or fill customers' orders. It is essentially a demonstrated inability to perform the basic duties and tasks of a position at an acceptable level.
Failure to comply with operating procedures
Masters gave, as an example of this, not recording the results of diagnostic tests on people, product, or property to ensure quality and safety or not following the specified procedures in operating equipment, maintaining equipment and so forth.
Threatening statements
According to HR Acuity, any violent behavior or implied violence toward a colleague, customer or supervisor is grounds for termination. So saying something like, "If you don't back off, you'll regret it," could get you fired because employers must legally provide a safe workplace and such a comment could be gross misconduct leading to immediate termination.
Also, any malicious behavior such as unwanted pursuit, excessive calling, or obsessive tracking that makes someone fear bodily injury is not acceptable.
Masters said, for the most part, each case will involve a pattern of conduct that reasonable people would agree is unacceptable levels of expected performance and egregious acts may be sufficient in and of themselves for termination.
When to fight back, if you can
Masters said in the case of theft, if the object is of small value, it may be balanced by the arbitrator "against the past record of the employee, the specific circumstances of the situation, past practice under similar circumstance et cetera. Under a pure at-will doctrine, an employer does not need a reason to terminate someone."
Masters said an employee may litigate the discharge or dismissal if there are other statutory or legal bases for pursuing the claim such as the person was discriminated against for unlawful reason. Those illegal discrimination categories usually include race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age and disabilities.
"But courts are more costly and uncertain than formalized grievance procedures," Masters warned. "In some cases, the union may decide not to pursue an employee’s grievance if it deems the employee in the wrong."
Jamie L. LaReau is the senior autos writer at USA TODAY Co. who covers Ford Motor Co. for the Detroit Free Press. Contact Jamie at jlareau@freepress.com. Follow her on Twitter @jlareauan. To sign up for our autos newsletter. Become a subscriber.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Here are fireable offenses experts say you might not be aware of
