1. In regards to the incident of Brian Schell’s theft, assault of a co-worker, and lack of condor, it is noted that management of Groundwire did take the appropriate actions in regards to the dismissal of the above noted.
2. There are considerable facts that lead Groundwire to believe that Schnell is the person responsible for the theft of company material. When Groundwire management investigated the incidents of theft, they found evidence in Schnell’s possession. A sign for “Lightening Network Installers” had Schell’s phone number on file. Schnell would need all of the equipment stolen from Groundwire in order to do any work for other installation work. A Company Handbook was handed to all Groundwire employees in 2013 which indicated a strict prohibition against taking of any company materials. The evidence investigated by management indicates that Schnell is the one responsible for the theft of company materials. Furthermore, it is noted through the company handbook that Schnell was aware that this type of behavior is not tolerated by Groundwire. In reference to University of British Columbia v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 882 (Haidei Grievance),  B.C.C.A.A.A. No. 347 (Chair, McColl) it is noted that there are three criteria considered in theft cases. It is observed that Schnell…show more content… Groundwire recognizes the misconduct exhibited by Schnell regarding assault on coworker Randall. It was generally agreed upon that Randall originally directed Schnell with one hand on his elbow. Schnell reacted in such a behavior that caused Randall to collapse for several minutes and have physical injuries. Although Groundwire recognizes the amnesty clause Memorandum Agreement, the issue still stands of inappropriate behavior. Assault of a co worker is one of the three main reasons that Schnell has proven to not be a valuable employee and therefore termination of his employment, with a combination of other issues – is seen as reasonable in this