General Dynamics Convair Division
Labor Arbitration
95 Lab. Arb. Rep. 500 (1990)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between General Dynamics Convair Division (General Dynamics) (defendant) and the union (plaintiff), employees could not possess drugs on the property. However, General Dynamics was required to comply with due-process principles of just cause that applied to investigating possible drug possession. For example, employees were given notice that they consented to car searches by entering company property, but a search was allowed only on reasonable cause. Reasonable cause was defined as circumstances under which General Dynamics had “information, based on facts, about the employee’s conduct in the workplace that would cause a reasonable person to believe” that the employee had used drugs on General Dynamics property. Another MOU provision required a union representative to be present for an inspection. Although refusal to allow an inspection could result in termination, employees could not be forcibly detained or inspected. General Dynamics received a tip that an employee had drugs on company property. General Dynamics investigators went to the employee’s car and observed what they believed to be marijuana seeds inside it. Without a union representative present, investigators questioned the employee. The employee denied possessing drugs but refused to allow an inspection of the car. Investigators then brought the employee to the car, where the employee spoke with a union representative. After the investigators warned the employee that further refusal to inspect the car could lead to termination, the employee continued to refuse. Throughout these discussions, the investigators never mentioned the alleged marijuana seeds. General Dynamics later terminated the employee’s employment for insubordination. A grievance challenging the termination followed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jones, Arbitrator)
What to do next…
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.