Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Repeated safety violations justified equipment operator’s discharge after third incident, (Aug 19, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

The dispute arose after the employee, while operating a Komatsu 250 loader to load a pan line onto a truck, improperly secured the load.

An arbitrator denied a grievance brought by a mobile equipment operator contesting his discharge for allegedly operating a loader unsafely while loading a pan line, causing the equipment to become unstable and resulting in a workplace injury. Rejecting a union’s claim that a clerical error in the operator’s suspension notice violated due process, the arbitrator concluded the error caused no prejudice because the employee received written notice of the charges. The arbitrator further found that the operator had been properly trained and that this was his third violation of the same conduct rule within three months after a prior 35-day suspension, making discharge an appropriate penalty (Murray Oak Grove Coal, LLC and District 20, United Mine Workers of America (Stone, Arb. (July 31, 2023)).

Workplace accident. The dispute arose after the employee, while operating a Komatsu 250 loader to load a pan line onto a truck, improperly secured the load, causing the loader’s rear wheels to lift off the ground before the pan line fell. Although no equipment was damaged, the employee reported injuring his back during the incident.

Fired. Following an investigation, the employer suspended the employee with intent to discharge and later terminated his employment for failing to operate equipment safely and for neglect or carelessness in performing assigned duties, in violation of its Employee Conduct Rules.

Union’s challenges. The union initially challenged the discharge on procedural grounds, arguing that the suspension notice contained an incorrect date—April 26, 2023, instead of June 26, 2023—and therefore violated the contractual discharge procedure. It also maintained that the employee had not received adequate task-specific training on the Komatsu loader and asserted that the discharge was retaliatory because it followed the filing of an accident report. According to the union, the employer failed to establish just cause for termination.

Clerical error and video evidence. The employer responded that the incorrect date was merely a clerical error that had no bearing on the reasons for the suspension, which were clearly communicated to the employee. It further relied on video evidence and witness testimony showing that the pan line had been loaded improperly and that the employee had previously acknowledged discomfort operating the equipment but nevertheless proceeded with the task. The employer also produced an MSHA training record signed by the employee and emphasized that he had successfully performed similar work in the past.

Procedural objection. The arbitrator rejected the union’s procedural objection, concluding that the collective bargaining agreement required written notice of the reason for discipline, not an accurate date on the notice itself. Because both parties understood that the incident occurred in June and the erroneous date could not have formed part of the basis for discipline, the clerical mistake did not deprive the employee of due process.

Clear and convincing evidence. On the merits, the arbitrator found that the employer had satisfied the clear and convincing evidence standard through video footage and testimony demonstrating that the employee failed to load the pan line properly. The arbitrator also rejected the claim of inadequate training, citing the signed MSHA training documentation and evidence that the employee had previously operated the equipment successfully. The allegation that the discharge was retaliation for filing an accident report was likewise unsupported.

Prior violations. Significantly, the arbitrator noted that the employee had previously violated the same Employee Conduct Rule by damaging a pump in March 2023 and a trash car in April 2023, resulting in a combined 35-day suspension. Although those earlier incidents caused only property damage, the latest incident resulted in a personal injury. Given that this was the third violation of the same safety rule within a three-month period, the arbitrator concluded that progressive discipline had already been applied and that the employer was not required to provide a fourth opportunity to correct the misconduct.

The grievance was denied, with the arbitrator finding that the employer had established just cause for discharge under the parties’ labor contract.

Attorneys: Timothy A. Baum for Murray Oak Grove Coal, LLC. James Blankenship for District 20, United Mine Workers of America.

Companies: Murray Oak Grove Coal, LLC; District 20, United Mine Workers of America

Cases: Labor Arbitration Discharge Procedure Safety UnionsMembers