Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Worker’s threats and abusive outburst at coworker justified termination, (Jun 10, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

“Threatening to hit another Employee, implying to burn her house down and using abusive, insulting and disrespectful language, including that which is harassing, does not require progressive discipline.”

An arbitrator upheld a manufacturing employee’s termination after finding that the employer had just cause to dismiss him for engaging in threatening and abusive conduct toward a coworker in violation of workplace rules. The employee was discharged following an investigation into an incident in which he allegedly shouted profanities, threatened physical harm, and made statements implying violence against a fellow employee. The arbitrator concluded that the misconduct was proven and sufficiently serious to warrant termination (Rheem Sales Co., Inc. and United Steelworkers, Local Union 7893 (Stone, Arb)).

Plant rules. The employer argued that the employee’s conduct constituted a clear violation of its plant rules prohibiting abusive, insulting, or threatening behavior in the workplace. It relied on witness statements, an internal investigation, and a police report filed by the affected coworker. The employer maintained that the employee had repeatedly used profane and threatening language, raised his fist, and made statements suggesting he could harm the coworker, thereby creating a hostile and unsafe work environment. It further contended that such conduct was incompatible with workplace safety and justified immediate discharge without progressive discipline.

Mitigating factors? The union contended that the discharge was without just cause and that the incident had been exaggerated. It argued that the employee had reacted to provocation and had not made threats of the nature alleged. The union further emphasized that the employee had apologized shortly after the incident and had a long tenure of employment. It submitted that, at most, the conduct warranted a lesser form of discipline and that the employer had failed to properly consider mitigating factors.

The arbitrator determined that the employer had established the misconduct through consistent and credible witness testimony. The accounts of multiple employees present during the incident were found to be reliable and corroborated each other on material aspects, including the use of threatening language and aggressive behavior. The arbitrator rejected the employee’s version of events, noting that his explanation was inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and that his assertion that other witnesses were fabricating their accounts was not persuasive.

Severity of response. The arbitrator further held that even if there had been some initial provocation, it did not justify the severity of the employee’s response. The conduct went beyond mere inappropriate language and included threats of physical harm and intimidation, which undermined workplace safety. The arbitrator emphasized that employees are entitled to a safe working environment and that such behavior cannot be tolerated.

Discharge justified. In assessing the appropriate penalty, the arbitrator found that the seriousness of the misconduct outweighed any mitigating factors, including length of service and the employee’s apology. The conduct was found to be of such a nature that it damaged the employment relationship and justified discharge. The arbitrator also noted that the employer had applied its rules consistently in similar cases.

The grievance was denied, and the arbitrator ruled that the employer had just cause to terminate the employee. The arbitrator concluded that the misconduct was sufficiently severe to warrant dismissal and that the employer acted within its rights in enforcing its workplace standards.

Attorneys: Kyllan Kershaw for Rheem Sales Co., Inc. Chad Vincent for United Steelworkers, Local Union 7893.

Companies: Rheem Sales Co., Inc.; United Steelworkers, Local Union 7893

Cases: Labor Arbitration Discharge Safety