(FORTUNE Magazine) – The purpose of this memorandum is to . . . inform you of an important development . . . In 1983, in a situation involving termination of four employees for the same minor dishonest acts, an arbitrator reinstated one of them, finding the offense too minor to warrant discharge. The company subsequently decided that fairness required it to allow the other three to return to work . . . Last month, in two cases involving three employees who committed significant dishonest acts, an arbitrator ruled that the company's leniency in the earlier cases constituted an ''inconsistency'' and ordered that the three employees be returned to work . . . The arbitrator's . . . decisions mean that any leniency by the company may be construed in future arbitrations as ground for reinstatement . . . Accordingly, there can and will be no voluntary reinstatement by the company of any employee discharged for theft . . . -- From a staff memorandum circulated at the New York Times.