Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Discipline and discharge, leveled by management in response to malfeasance, implies fault on the part of the employee. But if employees are impaired because of mental illness— and are therefore unable to understand or control their actions— can it be said that they are at fault? This is but one of the issues raised by this article on mental illness.

Both cases involving misconduct by mentally ill employees and those in which employees have resigned and are seeking reinstatement are considered. The author concludes that arbitrators first determine whether the employee is at fault, presents a safety hazard, or has the ability to perform. They then seek to determine whether the company acted properly. For example, did the company give the employee the same benefits and consideration as granted to physically disabled employees? Has it reasonably and equitability considered the employee's present mental condition, ability to perform, and the risk to other workers? Also touched upon is the highly debated issue of whether it is the company's responsibility to rehabilitate such employees.