“Olson`s refusal to go to either the aptitude test or the doctor to verify his claims to the disease constituted misconduct that was contrary to the last-chance order. Therefore, this behaviour is only one reason for the village to terminate Olson`s employment. The union mourned his dismissal and relied on the LCA`s dismissal sanction. The employer challenged the complaint. The union referred the matter to arbitration. The grieving man, Leo Johnson, a C.I.A. mechanic with 28 years of service with the company, was ordered to do a “random” drug test (for workers at work that day) based on a practice introduced by the employer a few years earlier after discussions with the union (and apparently an extended management clause in the CBA). After providing a urine specimen, Johnson told the operations manager that he would test positive after recently smoking marijuana while on leave to attend his brother`s funeral. The employer offered Johnson union representation for disciplinary proceedings, but he refused, and after signing an LCA form, was suspended. The ACF included the employee`s agreement to terminate my employment at AECI when I reported that I was working under the influence, testing positively or possessing alcohol, drugs or controlled substances on co-op property. Olson`s labour organization, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), questioned his dismissal in 2013 as part of an arbitration proceeding. An arbitrator found that the 2007 last-chance agreement was invalid, as the FOP did not participate in the agreement. Although the Adjudicator reintroduced Olson, he found that Olson tended to be abrupt or repugnant to his colleagues, had problems that had taken the lead, and had shown poor judgment or discretion in carrying out his police duties. Police officer Tom Olson of Fox Lake, Illinois, came to his last contract in a different way. Olson was first fired in 2013 from the Village for a large number of misdemeanors, including refusing to complete orders, failing to properly and correctly complete reports, and harassing a village resident.
At the time, Olson was under a last-chance agreement in 2007, which stemmed from his behaviour during a traffic stop. Violation of a last-chance agreement is usually grounds for immediate termination, regardless of the unions that normally apply. The text of these agreements is largely contained in the text, in order to avoid further arbitrations. What distinguishes agreements from the last chance from other forms of disciplinary action is the concrete assertion that compliance with the terms of the agreement is necessary to maintain employment. After the employee`s impression of the violation, certain guidelines may be cited and the specific steps the staff member must take to prevent future violations may be clearly stated (the procedure is very different from one company to another). In general, any future need for disciplinary action will result in termination within a specified time frame, so that there are generally no specific disciplinary measures. “Here, the Last Chance Agreement has established that Olson does not have the power to disobey, modify or ignore orders or directives, without the person who gave him the original order not being authorized.