STEWARD'S SOURCEBOOK: The Reasonable Person Standard

THE STEWARD’S JOB often resembles work done by an attorney. A member feels wronged, so he seeks the advice of the steward, who investigates, finds contract language that may have been violated or some other basis for a formal grievance, attempts to negotiate a settlement, and if no settlement is forthcoming, takes the question before an arbitrator for a binding ruling.

That sounds a lot like what a civil attorney does. And stewards sometimes find they can benefit from knowing some of the things an attorney relies on: identifying an issue, constructing a formal argument, writing letters, preparing and questioning witnesses, and even complying with the rules for presenting evidence in a formal hearing.

Fortunately, though, the grievance procedure does not involve problems that hinge on the steward’s knowledge of legal technicalities and a vast array of local ordinances, state and federal laws, judicial rulings, and precedents. Grievances are more likely to hinge on a concept usually referred to as the “reasonable person standard.”

The reasonable person standard plays a role in legal proceedings as well. Usually in cases where a person engages in conduct that is not illegal, but which results in some kind of injury to someone else. The first known instance of its application in English law is a good example of how it works.

In the early 1800s, a farmer stacked hay on the property he rented in an unsafe way. His landlord warned him that the way he was stacking the hay could result in spontaneous ignition, but the renter ignored the warnings. Eventually the hay did ignite. The fire burned down the renter’s barns and stable and then spread to the landlord’s two cottages on the adjacent property. The landlord sued.

The defendant’s attorneys argued that no law barred the defendant from stacking hay the way he did, and he acted in good faith, stacking the hay to the best of his knowledge and ability, so he should not be held responsible. But the court ruled that the defendant was to blame because he was obliged to act “such as a man of ordinary prudence” would have acted. In other words, a reasonably prudent man would have been more careful, so the defendant was guilty of negligence.

The reasonable man standard finds its way into the grievance procedure in a number of different situations. Company rules are required to be reasonable. Workers’ actions on the job are subject to being characterized as reasonable or unreasonable. Arbitrators use the reasonable person standard when evaluating interpretations of contract language. Disciplinary actions can be examined using this standard.

The reasonable person standard is useful because it is relatively objective but does not require everything to be spelled out. You may not know how to say what a “reasonable” action is in a given situation, but you know it when you see it.

Let’s examine one scenario and see how we can use the reasonable person standard to our advantage.