Activity 3.2

docx

School

Maseno University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3250

Subject

Economics

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by JackNjungi

Report
Activity 3.2 In Eastern Associated Coal Corporation v. UMW District 17 , case17.2, pages 555-557, the Supreme Court rejected the employer’s position. Share why. Do you agree or disagree with the outcome? Share your rationale. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that public policy considerations do not require courts to refuse to enforce an arbitration award ordering an employer to reinstate an employee truck driver who twice tested positive for marijuana. We granted certiorari in light of disagreement among the Circuits. Compare id. , at **1 (holding that public policy does not prohibit “reinstatement of employees who have used illegal drugs in the past”), with, e.g. , Exxon Corp. v. Esso Workers’ Union, Inc. , 118 F.3d 841, 852 (CA1 1997) (holding that public policy prohibits enforcement of a similar arbitration award). Neither the Act nor the regulations forbid an employer to reinstate in a safety- sensitive position an employee who fails a random drug test once or twice. The congressional and regulatory directives require only that the above-stated prerequisites to reinstatement be met. Eastern Associated Coal Corporation v. UMW District 17, case17.2 DECISION: Smith should not be discharged unless he fails to meet the prerequisite for reinstatement ordered by the arbitrator. REASONING: The question here is not about Smith violating the public policy, it is whether reinstating Smith is a violation if the policy. 1. Provided Smith: Accept a new suspension without pay for more than three months Reimb ur se Easter n and th e u nion fo r th e cos t fo r bo th ar bitration proceedings Continue to participate in the substance-abuse program Continue to undergo random drug testing; and Provide Eastern with a signed, undated letter of resignation, to take effect if he again tested positive within the next five years, Reinstating Smith is not a violation of the policy. 2. Both employer and union have agreed to entrust remedial decision to an arbitrator. 3. The Supreme Court could not find any policy contrary to the arbitrator's decision References
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, 531 U.S. 57
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help