Reference no: EM133022815

Question: George was a unionized car mechanic with 25 years' service in an auto body shop. On Thursday, May 14, 2015, he reported an injury while handling an air brake valve but he worked the balance of that day as well as the next. However, on the following Monday, George returned to work with a doctor's note stating he could only use his left arm. But because George was already doing modified work that required both arms, the employer said it could not offer him any modified work.

The employer decided to undertake video surveillance of George off-duty. It was suspicious because George had a somewhat greater-than-average record of work-related incidents calling for medical attention and it wanted to see whether he was engaged in activities that went beyond the medical restrictions imposed upon him by his physician. The surveillance revealed him carrying objects of significant weight and digging-up his garden. George was fired by him employer. He grieved his dismissal and an arbitrator ruled that the surveillance evidence was inadmissible.

How do you think the arbitrator justified that decision? Explain your answer