Simon v. Stag Laundry, Inc.

One Gingold, who had been in the employ of the appellant as a routeman, was discharged. In his behalf respondent *107union claimed that the discharge was without cause. Appellant, on the other hand, asserted that Gingold was discharged because of certain irregularities in the performance of his duties constituting dishonesty.

The controversy was submitted for arbitration to the impartial chairman as provided in an agreement previously entered into between appellant and the union. After several hearings the impartial chairman made his award which directed that the employee be. reinstated on…