Bosses are in love with zero tolerance policies. One arbitrator calls them “the last refuge of weak managers.”
Zero tolerance policies authorize employers to discharge workers who commit specified infractions without consideration of the surrounding circumstances, length of service, or the employee’s lack of prior discipline.
Unfair Punishment
Zero tolerance policies often lead to grossly unfair punishments.
- An employee is dismissed for fighting because she grabs the hand of a co-worker who strikes her without reason.
- A worker with an unblemished record is fired because he tests positive on a random marijuana screening.
- A driver with an outstanding safety history is terminated because she scratches her truck in a narrow enclosure.
When a union challenges a zero tolerance policy, the employer often refers to contractual language giving it the right to issue “reasonable” rules and regulations.
Zero tolerance violates the contract’s “reasonableness” requirement. When an employee whose conduct would ordinarily justify no more than a warning or suspension is discharged because of a rigid zero tolerance policy, the union should assert that the policy violates the common contractual requirement that rules must be “reasonable.” See the arbitration award cited in the box.
Zero tolerance violates the just-cause clause. Many union contracts say that rules must “not conflict with” any part of the agreement. A rule that permits or mandates discharge without consideration of the surrounding circumstances conflicts with the contract’s just-cause clause.
The just-cause concept, as interpreted by veteran labor arbitrators, compels an employer to weigh the gravity of the offense, consider mitigating and extenuating circumstances, and apply progressive discipline. Zero tolerance policies snuff out these bargained-for protections.
Take, for example, a policy that calls for the termination of any employee involved in a fight. If an employee was simply defending herself, did not use a weapon,…