American Medical Response

129 Lab. Arb. Rep. 1005 (2011)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

American Medical Response

Labor Arbitration
129 Lab. Arb. Rep. 1005 (2011)

Facts

An ambulance driver was a member of the Teamsters Local 769 (union) (plaintiff) and an employee of American Medical Response (American Medical) (defendant). A collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between the union and American Medical provided that American Medical had the staffing authority to require mandatory overtime. Under the CBA, American Medical was required to give an employee notice that the employee would need to stay longer than a scheduled shift at least one hour before the end of the employee’s shift. Additionally, under normal practice, the period of the last 45 minutes of a shift was reserved for paperwork, not ambulance calls. The CBA also gave American Medical broad rights to manage its operations, including immediate discharge of employees for insubordination. Consistently with this authority, the CBA made clear that an arbitrator could not modify the level of discipline as determined by American Medical for an offense. One day, the driver was on a call during a shift that was scheduled to end at 6:00 p.m. At 4:30 p.m., a supervisor called and requested that the driver do one more call between 5:15 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. (i.e., during the period the driver would normally do paperwork). Although the driver was a union steward, she misinterpreted the CBA provision regarding notice for overtime as requiring the overtime request to come in an hour before 5:15 p.m. instead of an hour before 6:00 p.m. The driver and a coworker refused to complete the call, citing their understanding of the CBA. American Medical terminated the driver for insubordination, which was challenged under the CBA. The union argued that the driver had not been terminated for just cause and that the termination violated the CBA. Specifically, the union asserted that (1) the driver’s conduct did not rise to the level of insubordination because the driver did not receive a direct order, (2) the termination constituted disparate treatment because the driver’s coworker received only a warning letter for refusing to take the call, and (3) the termination penalty was too harsh.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Smith, Arbitrator)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership