Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Welder’s termination for weapons policy violation reduced to suspension, (Dec 17, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

The natural gas provider was ordered to reinstate the welder to his former position with full seniority, no loss of benefits, and without loss of pay other than that attributable to the suspension.

Sustaining in part a grievance filed by a welder with over 11 years of service contesting his termination for violating the company’s Weapons Policy and Code of Conduct, an arbitrator found that while the employee’s conduct warranted discipline, discharge was excessive. The grievant took possession of a firearm found during work hours, placed it in his vehicle, and failed to promptly report it. Noting mitigating factors—his intent to secure the gun, his clean record, and the company’s inconsistent discipline of others—the arbitrator reduced the discharge to a 90-day suspension without pay and ordered reinstatement with full seniority and benefits (Gas Workers Union Local 11-6, USW and Spire Missouri, Inc. (Suardi, Arb. Mar. 24, 2025)).

The incident arose when the grievant took possession of a firearm that a coworker found on a public roadway during work hours. Instead of reporting the weapon to management or police as required by company policy, the grievant placed the gun in his truck, fell asleep for over an hour during paid work time, and later turned the weapon over to local police after being contacted by the coworker. The company viewed his conduct—possession of a firearm, sleeping on duty, and inaccurate time reporting—as just cause for termination.

Union position. The union contended that the company failed to establish misconduct warranting discharge. It emphasized that the employee’s possession of the gun stemmed from a good-faith attempt to render it safe, that no specific policy addressed what to do when an employee found a firearm, and that other employees on-site who failed to report the gun were not disciplined. The union also argued that the company improperly relied on timekeeping violations not cited in the termination notice and that the penalty was excessive in light of the employee’s long, discipline-free record.

Company position. The company maintained that the employee’s conduct violated multiple safety and honesty provisions of its policies. Management argued that possession of a weapon on company property is uniformly recognized as a dischargeable offense and that the employee’s failure to immediately report the weapon, compounded by sleeping during paid hours and providing inconsistent statements during the investigation, destroyed trust and justified dismissal. It asserted that other employees were not similarly situated because none of them had taken actual possession of the firearm.

Arbitrator’s findings. The arbitrator found that the company met its burden of proving the employee violated both the Weapons Policy and the Code of Conduct by sleeping during work time and failing to report possession of the firearm. He determined, however, that discharge was excessive under the circumstances. The arbitrator noted that the employee’s conduct differed materially from cases involving intentional weapon possession; here, the gun had been found during work hours and the employee had acted in partial good faith by making it safe. The arbitrator emphasized that no prior discipline existed in the employee’s record and that the company had not disciplined other employees who were aware of the gun’s presence but failed to report it.

Lesser penalty required. While affirming the reasonableness of the company’s safety concerns, the arbitrator held that progressive discipline principles required a lesser penalty. The unique factual circumstances, the employee’s tenure, and management’s inconsistent treatment of comparable employees weighed in favor of mitigation. Consequently, the termination was converted to a 90-day unpaid suspension.

The arbitrator ordered the employee’s reinstatement to his former position with full seniority, benefits, and back pay after deduction of interim earnings, subject to the 90-day disciplinary suspension. He retained jurisdiction for 60 days to resolve any disputes regarding implementation of the remedy.

Attorneys: Katie L. Fechte for Spire Missouri, Inc. Janine M. Martin for Gas Workers Union Local 11-6, USW.

Companies: Gas Workers Union Local 11-6, USW

Cases: Arbitration Labor Safety Discharge RemediesDamages