Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Employer failed to establish ‘just cause’ to fire employee involved in workplace challenge involving gun threats, (Jul 22, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

The employer failed to adequately consider mitigating circumstances and improperly equated the employee’s defensive response with a workplace threat.

An employee’s grievance contesting his discharge after an altercation with a coworker, in which he responded to a challenge involving guns by stating, “I keep mine,” was sustained by an arbitrator. The arbitrator found the employer failed to establish just cause for termination. Although the employee exercised poor judgment, the arbitrator concluded that the employer relied heavily on hearsay from a coworker who did not testify, failed to adequately consider mitigating circumstances, and improperly equated the employee’s defensive response with a workplace threat. Finding the termination arbitrary and capricious, the arbitrator ordered reinstatement with full back pay, restored seniority and benefits, and retained jurisdiction over the remedy for 90 days (Veolia ES Technical Solutions, Inc. and International Chemical Workers Union Council of the UFCW, Local 6C (Luers, Arb. Apr. 7, 2026)).

The employer operates a hazardous waste incinerator in Sauget, Illinois. Employees at the facility receive and handle chemical waste from various industries that the employer disposes of through incineration.

Workplace violence policy. Among the employer’s policies is a zero-tolerance workplace violence policy, which states that “The Company does not tolerate any type of workplace violence committed by or against employees, business invitees or customers. Employees are prohibited from making threats or engaging in violent activities.” Employees who violate the policy are subject to termination.

Altercation. On the morning of June 13, 2025, a coworker complained to a supervisor that the employee was bullying him. That same morning, the employee made disparaging comments about the coworker. The coworker confronted the employee and the dispute escalated. The coworker turned up the heat by challenging the employee to settle the issue between them with “hands or guns.” The employee allegedly replied by saying: “Do it then” and “I keep mine.” Following the altercation, the coworker was suspended for threatening gun violence.

That same day, the employer obtained statements from witnesses. The coworker detailed how the employee had harassed him by calling him “bum,” “trash,” and lowlife. The employee’s statement made no mention that he had made a reference to having a gun of his own. The employee later admitted that he made a reference to having his own gun. He told the investigator that when the coworker had challenged him to “shoot it out,” he responded by saying “I keep mine.” According to the employee he was referring to his Illinois Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card.

The employer decided to terminate the coworker because of his gun threat. It also determined that the employee had initiated the situation, did not deescalate, and omitted his threat of gun-violence from his initial written statement. Accordingly, the employer terminated him as well.

Termination decision. According to company documents, it appeared that racial slurs were a factor in the decision to terminate the employee. Further, the decision to terminate him was based on management findings that: (1) he was the actual aggressor in the situation; (2) he used racial slurs in the exchange with the coworker; (3) he responded to the coworker with a threat of violence; and (4) he did not do anything to deescalate the situation.

The arbitrator first noted that the parties’ description of what happened during the incident was fairly consistent. Thus, a large part of the dispute rested on determining who started it.

Aggressor in incident. First, the arbitrator determined that the conversation between the coworker and his supervisor regarding his relationship with the employee did not prove any bullying took place; nor did it prove that the employee’s alleged jibes were the impetus for the incident that occurred approximately two hours later in the breakroom.

Racial slurs. Next, the arbitrator ruled that the allegation of the use of racial slurs on the part of the employee was inconclusive. The employer did not present any credible evidence to prove the employee used racial slurs. The employee testified he did not use racial slurs and an eyewitness stated she was not sure. Thus, it was not clear the employee ever used any racial slurs at any time either prior to or during any interaction with the coworker.

Threat of violence. Further, the employer failed to present sufficient evidence to support its assertions that the response of the employee to the actual threats of the coworker constituted a threat itself confirming access to a weapon and an active willingness to use it in the workplace.

The employee testified that he did use the phrase, “I keep mine” in response to the coworker’s threat of violence and indicated this was referring to his FOID card, which allowed him to purchase and possess a firearm in Illinois. Accordingly, the arbitrator did not find that the employee’s response to his coworker’s threats was in any way threatening. The arbitrator found the phrasing the employee used, which was ambiguous at best, never rose to the level of the harm which the coworker indicated he intended to apply toward him.

Deescalation. Finally, the arbitrator rejected the emphasis placed by the employer on responsibility on the part of the employee to “de-escalate” any confrontation he may have with another employee.

Just cause. As a result, the arbitrator found the decision to terminate the employee was arbitrary and capricious and did not meet the “just cause” standard. According to the arbitrator, the employer did not satisfy its burden of proof on any of the four factors that led to the termination of the employee, nor was there any violation of the Policy Against Workplace Violence.

Accordingly, the employee was to be reinstated immediately with full back pay and restoration of seniority and benefits. Additionally, if there were wage increases that were scheduled to be implemented, the employee should be entitled to those wage increases, as well.

Attorneys: Robert W. Craft for International Chemical Workers Union Council of the UFCW, Local 6C. Daniel D. Barker for Veolia ES Technical Solutions, Inc.

Companies: Veolia ES Technical Solutions, Inc.; International Chemical Workers Union Council of the UFCW, Local 6C

Cases: Labor Arbitration ContractClaims Discharge RemediesDamages