The District Court relied in part on a decision of the Eighth Circle, which states that „normally, agreements with the last chance are binding in the context of an arbitration procedure“. It confirmed the termination on the basis of the ecological balance. „Here, the last chance agreement states that Olson does not have the power to ignore, modify, or ignore injunctions or instructions, without the consent of the person who gave him the original assignment in question. The agreement also provides that if Olson participates in misconduct or performance problems, this behavior is reason enough for the village to terminate Olson`s employment. „While I often advise employers not to expect them to be able to rely on zero-tolerance guidelines to fire an employee for a breach, the opposite usually applies to last-chance agreements. If a person has entered into such an agreement and subsequently violated it, the termination is usually maintained. Justice Steven M. Colloton accepted the verdict and justified the scruples of the ACA and thus its validity as a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. If the arbitrator`s decision in this case may have been controversial, confirmation of his arbitral award was requested. The judge, however, contradicted the part of the majority opinion that refused to impose the arbitration award regarding Johnson`s suspension.
The suspension was based on the same alleged fault on the part of the employer invoked to justify the ACA and, therefore, the arbitrator acted at least as part of the presentation by retaining a remedy for the suspension, the judge said. .