The ?I quit? syndrome

Abstract

Managements, unions, and arbitrators have been plagued by a very simple but long-standing problem involving what might be termed a routine human resource action. The problem stated simply is: When is a quit a quit? Where employees are represented by a bargaining agent, the company cannot always be sure that a “quit is a quit.” It is clear that employers who do not understand the “I quit” syndrome are in an uncertain position with respect to handling such problems. The authors have also discovered that unions do not understand the “I quit” syndrome either and at times go to arbitration with all of its attendant costs when the employee has actually “quit.” The purposes of this article are to study how arbitrators have ruled, to establish the principles involved in this little-known area of union/management relations and to provide parties to such cases with information to guide them. Arbitrators have upheld grievances and reversed company actions often enough that there is a need to clarify what is a “quit” as well as a need to clarify what the rights are of both parties under the collective bargaining agreement. The authors found that many managements use the “I quit” syndrome as a substitute for disciplinary action. It is clear from arbitral decisions that it is best from the company point of view to allow the disciplinary system to handle problem employees. The authors also found that reasonable resignations by employees were upheld by arbitrators. If employers carefully handle and document employee resignations, the resignations will stand. Further, it is clear that employers must issue clear policy statements concerning resignations; this includes avoiding resignations under duress. Finally, parties to collective bargaining agreements need contract language defining a quit.