The grievant worked as a Repair Mechanic in the city’s Water and Sewage Department.  On March 16, 2004, the grievant was issued a 29 day suspension with recommendation for discharge.  On April 14, 2004, the grievant was terminated for “Use of abusive language and threatening physical violence to a fellow employee.”

On the morning of March 16, 2004, the grievant and co-worker had a verbal confrontation.  It started with the co-worker responding to an inquiry by the grievant.  The response was “Did you see the cones, boy?”  The verbal exchange escalated until a foreman stopped the two and directed them to their separate areas.  The grievant however, went to the co-worker’s shop and confronted him.  He told the co-worker, “You are gonna stop calling me boy, bitch, and M_ F_.”  The co-worker responded “No, I am not,” to which the grievant said he would “blow his shit out.”  More of this same type of conversation continued until the co-worker called for the foreman.

This case is interesting because normally such threats of physical violence in the work place would be grounds for termination.  The grievant was truly the aggressor in this situation by going to the co-worker’s work area to confront him verbally after being separated earlier, and such threats of violence can not be tolerated in the work area.  The advocate for the grievant in this case, however, was aware of a defense called “fighting words.”

The advocate was able to prove that this co-worker has displayed a history with the grievant of using disrespectful name calling such as “boy,” “bitch” and “Mother F_er.”  The arbitrator, in part, ruled that such name calling was intended to degrade the grievant.  When such language is used, these are “fighting words” intended to trigger a response to action.  The grievant’s response came on March 16, 2004.