In a shocking display of management overreach, the University of Hawai‘i/Hawai‘i Community College and its administration have been called out for issuing an unjust and excessive six-day suspension to a long-serving employee—an action that has now been largely overturned following an arbitration hearing. The Grievant, a dedicated employee with twelve years of service at the time and a spotless disciplinary record was unjustly subjected to a six-day suspension for his role as a victim in a workplace incident—an event that, according to the arbitration decision, did not justify such severe punishment.
The incident in question occurred in February 2016, when the Grievant was physically assaulted by a co-worker in the college cafeteria. In the immediate aftermath, the Grievant reported the assault to campus security, expecting a fair and impartial investigation. Instead, the report was destroyed by the then Chief of Security, severely undermining the Grievant’s version of events. Despite the clear assault, the mishandling of the security report and the loss of crucial evidence left the Grievant’s side of the story obscured and misrepresented.
Although a small number of co-workers claimed the incident created a “hostile work environment,” the vast majority of staff reported being unaffected by the altercation. This suggests that, while the assault itself was serious, the Grievant did not contribute to the creation of a hostile work environment, unlike in other cases where tensions or conflicts may have been ongoing. Despite the trivial nature of the event and the lack of significant impact on the broader workforce, the University of Hawai‘i/Hawai‘i Community College administration chose to impose a harsh six-day suspension on the Grievant.
The suspension was decided by the Hawai‘i Community College administration, which relied heavily on testimony that blurred the lines between the Grievant’s actions and those of the assailant. Witness statements, some from individuals with no direct involvement in the incident, seemed to be shaped by questions designed to suggest that both the Grievant and the assailant had ongoing issues with coworkers—despite the fact that the Grievant had no history of such conflicts. The questions appeared intentionally framed to create the impression that both employees’ behavior was equally problematic, even though the Grievant had no involvement in any of the past issues being referenced. This misleading approach distorted the investigation and cast doubt on its fairness and accuracy. Even administrators involved in the decision admitted they could not recall why they imposed such a harsh penalty, suggesting that the decision was rushed, careless, and made without thorough consideration of the facts or the severity of the situation.
The Union fiercely contested the suspension, arguing that it was not only disproportionate but entirely unjust. The Grievant had more than a decade of excellent service, with no prior disciplinary record, and had often been entrusted with higher-level responsibilities. The Union contended that the University failed to follow progressive discipline guidelines, which are designed to provide reasonable corrective measures before issuing harsh penalties.
During the arbitration hearing, held nearly eight years after the original incident, the Arbitrator found the suspension to be excessive. While acknowledging the University’s responsibility to address workplace issues, the Arbitrator pointed out the lack of evidence justifying such a lengthy suspension. Furthermore, the Arbitrator highlighted that the Grievant’s actions were not retaliatory in nature, and that the co-worker involved in the altercation was, in fact, the aggressor. Despite this, the University of Hawai‘i/Hawai‘i Community College chose to punish both parties equally, demonstrating a lack of fairness and nuance in its decision-making.
In a rare victory for the Grievant, the arbitration ruling reduced the suspension to a mere one day, effectively compensating the employee for the five unjust days he had been unfairly penalized. The Arbitrator noted the Grievant’s sincerity and long-standing record of good service but also emphasized that the University’s response to the situation had been disproportionate and lacking in fairness.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the University of Hawai‘i/Hawai‘i Community College’s failure to handle workplace issues with the proper care and consideration. Rather than addressing the situation fairly, management chose a punitive approach that resulted in an unjust penalty for a loyal and hardworking employee who had no prior disciplinary issues and did not deserve such treatment. While the reduction of the suspension is a step in the right direction, it does little to undo the damage done by the University’s flawed decision-making process.
The Grievant’s perseverance in seeking justice through the arbitration process ultimately prevailed, but it should not have taken eight years for the University of Hawai‘i/Hawai‘i Community College to acknowledge its error. The larger issue remains: how many other employees have faced similar mistreatment due to the University’s lack of accountability and failure to follow proper procedures? The University of Hawai‘i/Hawai‘i Community College must take responsibility for its actions and do better in the future.
