The employer argued the grievant violated established rules and policies and thus placed residents in an unsafe setting subjecting the facility to possible sanctions from the state.

The Union responded the dismissal should be set aside because there was no clear promulgation of the "rule" said to be violated and that enforcement of any such rule had been lax. The Union further argued that even if there were guilt of this misconduct, the penalty was too severe.

The arbitrator concluded the discharge was without just cause. The issuance of a written warning was the extent of the discipline, which should have been issued. The grievant was reinstated and to be made whole.