No, but in cases like this, enough pressure on the union and enough co-workers in consent and they'll back off supporting him.
They'll make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed to protect themselves from liability and watch as the boss's show him the door.
I think what bothers me in cases like this (and I can only speak for myself) is that while the union is protecting guys like this, they're ignoring the hostile work environment that the
other union members are now forced to work in,
by union consent, knowing this guy is already a discipline issue. It's a double standard: protect one and watch everyone else suffer because of that protection.
I have been witness to the union backing off protecting folks like this.
The offender went to the union with constant complaints about management even when there was nothing to complain about. When the offender finally went ape-s*** over something that wasn't any of her business the union backed off and let management do what needed to be done: they cleaned out her desk and watched her get escorted to the car.
But it also took repeated complaints about this person, by co-workers, for the union to finally back off. The union saw that this person wasn't exactly someone they wanted to protect, because the other union members told them not to protect her. They did it en masse, not only meeting with the union reps, but also letters, phone calls to Albany, and pushing the local reps.
Then she hung herself on her own rope.
Being vocal
can and
does work. Enough pressure put on the union by everyone who pays dues and a friendly reminder that those dues are also being paid to ensure a safe, non-hostile work environment - and this gentleman is acting just opposite of that - can make the union rethink protecting him anymore. Especially considering that prior disciplinary measure haven't worked to change his attitude.