Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • NLRB NEWS—Board now has a quorum with two new members sworn in
    • DISCRIMINATION—9th Cir.: Preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of WLAD against religious organization that hires co-religionists affirmed
    • DISCRIMINATION—AGE—M.D. Pa.: Decisionmakers’ alleged remarks reflecting pre-firing concern about employee’s age bolsters ADEA claim
    • DISCRIMINATION—E.D. La.: Salesperson, terminated after alleged performance issues, fails to advance various claims
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—4th Cir.: African-American police officer, fired after bachelorette party altercation, stated race discrimination claim
    • EEOC NEWS—Agency sues employers over failure to comply with ADA, ADEA, Title VII, PWFA non-discrimination mandates
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Back in Business: EEOC’s Restored Quorum Explained and a Look Forward to 2026
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—New Weighted Selection Process for H-1B Cap Lottery Set to Take Effect in 2026
    • FDIC NEWS—OIG closes investigations into allegations of misconduct, fraud within organization
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—DOL rescinds WIOA guidance construing ‘because of... sex’ in Title IX to include transgender status and gender identity
    • LABOR—ARBITRATION—Union president’s Discord post found to incite prohibited work stoppage
    • LABOR—NLRB WEEKLY SUMMARY—Weekly summary of NLRB decisions
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Union sues Texas ed agency alleging baseless investigations of educators after Kirk assassination
    • ON THE LABOR FRONT—New York’s Purported NLRA Preemption Circumvention Thwarted. Is California’s Next?
    • PENSION AND BENEFIT PLANS—9th Cir.: Employer avoids withdrawal liability for pension contributions since MPPAA’s entertainment exception applied
    • RETALIATION—W.D. La.: EEOC proved retaliation against Black employee who complained her supervisor asked if she attended BLM protests
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Union president’s Discord post found to incite prohibited work stoppage, (Jan 7, 2026)

    Organizations Mentioned:Amalgamated Transit Union | Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1754 | Transdev Services, Inc.

    By WK Editorial Staff

    The labor contract explicitly prohibited not only strikes but any form of intentional service interruption, including the “encouragement” or “promotion” of work stoppages.

    A union failed to show that Transdev Services lacke ...

    By WK Editorial Staff

    The labor contract explicitly prohibited not only strikes but any form of intentional service interruption, including the “encouragement” or “promotion” of work stoppages.

    A union failed to show that Transdev Services lacked just cause to discharge a transit operator and longtime union president after management obtained Discord messages from him suggesting employees “could all call in tomorrow.” The arbitrator found that the post violated Article 3.4 of the applicable labor contract, which prohibits direct or indirect strike activity, and that it warranted immediate discharge under Article 3.5. Despite the former employee’s claims of sarcasm and privacy, the arbitrator found the post encouraged a sick-out during a critical service period. The transit operator’s prior final warning for insubordination and his admission to the post supported the employer’s action, and allegations of retaliation were also rejected (Transdev Services, Inc. and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1754 (Fowler, Arb. Aug. 12, 2025)).

    Discord. The incident occurred on the eve of Kansas University’s Panhellenic Week, a period of heightened operational demand due to high passenger volume, particularly among university students. The employer, Transdev Services, discovered that the grievant had posted several messages to union members, suggesting that “we all can call in tomorrow” and sarcastically implying that management could handle service without the bargaining unit.

    Incitement. The arbitrator found these statements to be deliberate acts of incitement, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement’s strict no-strike clause.

    No strikes or intentional service interruptions. Articles 3.4 and 3.5 of the labor contract explicitly prohibit not only strikes but any form of intentional service interruption, including the “encouragement” or “promotion” of work stoppages, and designate immediate discharge as the consequence for violation.

    Clearly aware... Given the grievant’s role in negotiating the contract, the arbitrator found that he was clearly aware of the severity of this provision. Despite the grievant’s assertion that the messages were sarcastic and made within a private online forum, the arbitrator gave weight to the significant operational consequences that followed.

    Operational consequences. On the day after the messages were posted, 14 employees called in sick—almost triple the usual number—resulting in the cancellation of 13 routes, a serious disruption to transit services.

    Causal link. The union argued that the employer failed to establish a direct causal link between the messages and the employee absences. However, the arbitrator rejected this contention, holding that under the labor contract, the act of inciting or encouraging a work stoppage is itself a terminable offense, regardless of its effectiveness or the extent of its implementation. Further, the grievant’s prior disciplinary record, which included a final written warning for insubordination and inappropriate conduct, was found to compound the seriousness of the misconduct.

    Just cause. Applying the Enterprise Wire Co. seven-factor test for just cause, the arbitrator determined that each criterion had been satisfied. The employer’s rule was clear, fairly enforced, and reasonably related to operational needs. The investigation was prompt, impartial, and based on undisputed documentary evidence. Finally, the penalty of termination was deemed proportionate given the grievant’s role, the public nature of the disruption, and the harm caused to the employer’s credibility and client relationships. The grievance was denied in full, and the discharge upheld.

    Attorneys: James N. Foster for Transdev Services, Inc. Justin R. Priest for Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1754.

    Companies: Transdev Services, Inc.; Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1754

    Cases: Arbitration Labor ContractClaims UnfairLaborPractices Discharge RemediesDamages

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use