The grievant, a supervisor, was disciplined for leaving work early on multiple occasions. He was charged with theft of time. In addition, he was demoted to the position of janitor.

The Union argued that the grievant received double jeopardy when he was both suspended and demoted. The Union also argued that demotion as a form of discipline was improper, because that form of discipline is permanent and punitive as opposed to corrective.

The arbitrator wrote that the "30 day suspension is a reasonable penalty considering the seriousness of the grievant's actions, since as a supervisor he has a great deal of autonomy and is expected to be a role model for his subordinates . . .

"The grievant was demoted to janitor in addition to his suspension. This was not double jeopardy insofar as penalties that take different forms can be given at the same time . . .

"There is a rule of contract construction called expression unius est exclusion alterius, to express one thing is to exclude all others. Article 13, by including suspensions, terminations and reprimands as forms of discipline, excludes demotion as a proper form of discipline. The expression unius rule has been used by arbitrators for many years to exclude demotion as a proper form of discipline. The first case dates from 1943 in Arbitrator Whitley P. McCoy's decision in Reynolds Alloy, (2LA 554, 1943).

"Further, there is strong arbitral precedent that a demotion cannot be used as a form of discipline, unless it is provided for in the contract or there is a past practice."

The arbitrator sustained the suspension but restored the grievant to his prior work as a Foreman.