Question: An employee of the Du Pont Company's plant in East Chicago attacked his supervisor and another employee and destroyed some company equipment all for no apparent reason. He was discharged by the company. He was subsequently arrested and spent thirty days under observation in a hospital psychiatric ward. Two psychiatrists subsequently testified in court that the employee was temporarily insane at the time of the incident, and therefore, he was acquitted of the criminal charges. They also testified that the worker had recovered and was not likely to suffer another mental breakdown. Following his acquittal, the worker's discharge was challenged by the union on the ground that the employee was not responsible for the assaults due to temporary mental incapacity.

Therefore, argued the union, he was not dismissed for "just cause" as called for under the "security of employment" clause in the collective bargaining agreement. The company refused to reinstate the employee, and the union moved the grievance to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled in the union's favor and ordered the grievant reinstated to his job. Du Pont filed suit in a federal court in Indiana to overturn the arbitrator's ruling. If you represented the company in front of the federal judge, what arguments would you make for overturning the arbitrator's award? If you represented the union, what counter arguments would you make in response? How should the judge have ruled? See E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Grasselli Employees Independent Ass'n. of E. Chicago [790 F.2d 611 (7th Cir. 1986)].