Local 35 - Summary of Arbitration Awards
1969 to the Present
This Local 35 arbitration summary covers almost thirty years. In that time the Union and the University have met in the arbitration forum 122 times.
The summaries that follow represent 94 arbitrations. The remaining cases had no relevance at all to today’s operations, nor was there any anecdotal information from the cases that might be considered beneficial from an educational standpoint. Due to the radical change in subcontracting language that was negotiated in the 1996 agreement, 9 subcontracting cases are not included herein.
Each summary is merely an overview of the critical issues in each case and is not intended to replace the award itself. Therefore, no one should rely exclusively on the summary but should utilize all of their resources ( supervisors, contract, Labor Relation Rep., etc.) when making operational decisions. Contact Labor Relations at 432-9822 if you wish to discuss a case or obtain a copy of a given award.
The summaries are organized starting from the most recent to the oldest and each case is identified by a reference number which corresponds to the date the award was issued.
Summaries
94/1/10
The University ceased paying employees, who were on Workers Compensation, full holiday pay, vacation pay, or floating holiday pay in addition to their workers’ compensation payment. These type of payments in some cases resulted in an employee being paid for up to 1 2/3 days of pay for each workers’ compensation day taken. The Arbitrator decided that the practice should be continued except in the case of unscheduled vacation. In the case where an employee has not previously scheduled vacation prior to the injury, such employee is only entitled to supplement his/her workers’ compensation payment to allow him/her to receive a full days pay.
92/7/22
A custodial employee refused to clean an area that the employee believed would put him at risk to his health. Management had the area inspected and cleared by the safety department and ordered the employee to return to work. The employee continue to refuse to do the work and was ultimately discharged. The arbitrator found that the explanation given to the worker by the safety official was insufficient and reinstated the employee.
91/10/25
The University Art Gallery changed its operating schedule which resulted in it being closed to the public during the month of August. This change constituted a discontinuation of service which resulted in the elimination of one position. This action was upheld by the arbitrator.
91/8/8
The University elected to have an arbitration proceeding recorded by a stenographer. The union objected and would not proceed with the stenographer present. The parties arbitrated whether or not the University had the right to have the stenographer present. This was upheld by the arbitrator adding that the requesting party must make a copy of the transcript available for the other party to inspect.
91/07/08
The union argued that trades people were improperly assigned to work based upon an earlier agreement that specified the response order for certain trades to certain problems. The Arbitrator found that the University did not have the right to unilaterally change the agreed upon response order. The only option available was to renegotiate job descriptions or retain the practice.
91/05/23
The University denied a promotion to an employee based upon medical restrictions that prevented the employee from performing all of the job tasks. The arbitrator found that the University held this employee to a different standard than others in the same job category. The employee received the promotion with full back pay.
90/09/07
The University employed casuals in lieu of regular workers on a holiday to avoid paying overtime pay in addition to the holiday pay. Negotiating history played an important role in the arbitrator’s decision to affirm the University’s actions in that the union unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a right to overtime in the past.
90/07/31
The University rescinded a job posting that was made in error. The newly posted position was for 9 months in one job category and 3 months in another thus creating a combination 12 month position. The University added a duty to the three month position from the 9 month position. The Arbitrator found that this added duty constituted an inappropriate unilateral modification to a negotiated job description and disallowed the added duty. The employee sought full back pay but was denied such pay since he was offered a full time position in settlement and declined such offer. The arbitrator said that the employee had an obligation to mitigate the damages by accepting the offered position until the matter could be resolved.
90/04/17
An Arbitrator sustained the University’s action of discharging a long term employee for unsatisfactory attendance. The union unsuccessfully tried to remove from the record a previous discharge that was negotiated into a reinstatement. The arbitrator found that his former suspension and loss of seniority was in fact part of the record. In the light of numerous warnings the employee ” demonstrated his incapability of fulfilling his responsibilities.” Thus, he was terminated for just cause after being progressively disciplined.
88/03/04
The University scheduled a worker for 17.5 hours per week but the employee consistently over an extended period of time (later described as 6 months) worked more than 20 hours per week. The University argued that the additional hours per week were based upon special functions which occurred on an irregular basis. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union that the consistent occurrence of those special functions constituted regular work. This entitled the employee to a permanent change to a benefit level job (20 hours per week). The union argued for retroactive benefits for an extended period but the arbitrator limited back benefits to the date the grievance was filed.
87/08/14
Many employees were scheduled not to work for several days between their summer alternative work assignment and their regular school year assignment. The arbitrator agreed with the University that this was not a violation of the alternative work and other contract provisions which indicated that short work weeks may occur for operational reasons. (New language in 1992 limits the number of short work week days to 7 days per year.)
87/08/07
Job description language ( revised in 1996 to avoid this from happening in the future ) provided the arbitrator with the right to set duties and labor grades when a dispute arose between the parties. In this case, the arbitrator found that there was, over a period of more than 15 years, a significant change in the duties, responsibilities, and skills in an entire family of job descriptions. In addition to upgrades and back pay, the arbitrator ordered the parties to renegotiate these job descriptions. The final reach of authority was when the arbitrator established an entire new pay status which elevated workers to a new pay level after 5 years in grade.
87/07/27
A hurricane resulted in the loss of electrical power throughout the University. Management expected workers to continue to provide services. An arbitrator found that a group of workers reasonably refused to perform work that they believed to be hazardous. Management was directed to remove any discipline and reimburse the employees for any money lost. Management should have reassigned displaced workers until the area could be declared safe by proper officials.
87/05/21
An employee sought and won the right to be issued safety shoes on behalf of an entire classification of workers. The arbitrator found that the potential for injury in this particular classification was sufficient to warrant the issuance of the shoes.
87/03/09
An employee was terminated for refusal to perform work with a chemical when the employee felt that the work was unsafe although management felt that the provision of personal protective equipment effectively removed the hazard. The arbitrator concluded that initially there was sufficient cause for concern with respect to the chemical used but that was later resolved. The employee’s physician directed her not to use the chemical at all. This employee sought bumping rights which would allow her to bump over others with more seniority. The arbitrator acknowledged her inability to use the chemical even with the protective equipment and reinstated her, cleared her record, but limited her bumping to her seniority level.
87/02/27
The threshold question of arbitrability was addressed when the arbitrator stated that this individual with an injury was considered to have a continuing grievance which allowed the recommencing of time limits for grievance filing every day.
On the merits of the case, the arbitrator found that the injured employee could have and should have been returned to work on a limited basis for some time based upon his restrictions at that time, and should have been fully reinstated at a later date. An important part of this case revolved around the contractual silence on second and third medical opinions. This was rectified by a subsequent contract.
86/12/10 H&C
Volunteer students erected an extension of the stage at Woolsey for a student performance in addition to removing some seats. The Carpenters argued that it was their work exclusively. The arbitrator found that this work by volunteer students did not violate the contract.
86/12/10 AJ
Weekend premiums are paid to those employees who are regularly assigned to perform that work. Someone filling in for an absent employee during these premium times is not entitled to the premium pay. However, the arbitrator found that a Rounds worker by the nature of his Rounds position, which requires him to fill in for absent workers, entitles him to the premium whenever he is assigned to work during premium times.
86/12/02
A jurisdictional dispute arose when a general mechanic replaced a light switch that an electrician felt was only in his domain. The arbitrator found that this work was not exclusively within the domain of the electrician and was permitted under the job description of the general mechanic.
86/10/22
Employees assigned to summer painting work received their painting uniforms late. The Arbitrator found that the University did not violate the contract because they ordered the uniforms in a timely manner and the union failed to show any actual damages for having the employees wear old clothes in the interim.
86/10/15
The University replaced a vacated position with a lower labor grade worker where there was no change in the operation. This department entered into an earlier agreement to maintain the use of various classifications as it had in the past, absent operational change. In light of the fact that there was no operational change, the arbitrator ordered the re-posting of the former higher labor grade in place of the vacated one.
86/08/15 D&R
The University responded to the grievance late. The language provides for extensions in writing but indicates that the grievance shall be settled in favor of the other party if not timely. The arbitrator granted the relief sought by the union.
86/08/15 R
The employee sought a temporary promotion for work he believed to be in a higher labor grade. The arbitrator found that the supervisor, not the employee, acted in the higher capacity and carefully instructed the employee. Even though the employee had the qualifications for the higher grade that alone was not sufficient for the upgrade.
86/07/30
The Union argued that the wrong trade was assigned to an emergency call by the dispatcher ( a Local 34 member ). The University unsuccessfully argued that this was not a supervisor and the University was therefore not liable for his actions. The arbitrator found for the Union.
86/07/22
The University failed to provide “clear and convincing evidence that the employee was guilty”. This resulted in the reinstatement of an employee who was accused of theft. A contributing factor to the reinstatement was the poor handling of the evidence.
86/06/17
This grievance was deemed to be arbitrable since the question was first raised at arbitration which is not timely. On the merits, the grievant sought a promotion and claimed that he was qualified despite the fact that he failed the written test on more than one occasion. The arbitrator found that the test was job related and that the employee was not treated unfairly as compared to others that came before him. The promotion was denied.
86/06/04
The testing language states that the test cannot be the sole basis for determining eligibility for a promotion. Despite the fact that the employee got a 10% on the test the arbitrator found that based upon the employee’s work history that he should be allowed to take the practical test to determine eligibility for the position. The arbitrator agreed with the University that an individual is not necessarily qualified for a permanent promotion based upon previous temporary promotions, since the standards for the two promotions are different. If the applicant is successful in demonstrating competence via the practical test, he would be promoted with a retroactive date and back pay.
86/03/05
The University did not violate the agreement when it assigned the TR&S drivers, instead of the Campus Mail drivers, to pick up a large load of mail from Admissions and deliver it to the post office. The nature of TR&S deliveries includes unusually large, unscheduled, and infrequent deliveries as opposed to the mail service which usually deals with small, scheduled and regular deliveries. The delivery in question was large, infrequent but scheduled.
86/02/21
The union unsuccessfully argued for temporary upgrades for employees where the specific duties in question were identical in both the lower and higher job description.
86/02/19
A supervisor improperly did bargaining unit work when he on one occasion picked up a truck from the service center and on another occasion when he made a furniture delivery. Both incidents were historically within the purview of the bargaining unit and specifically outlined in the job description.
86/01/31
The University improperly denied benefits to an employee who was regularly scheduled in a benefit level job but worked in a temporary job which was less than benefit level. The arbitrator found that the issue of benefits was linked to the employee in his permanent job and not the temporary one in which the employee served.
86/01/22
The question of a temporary promotion came about after a lower labor grade employee of one trade was called in to assist a higher labor grade employee of another trade in the performance of a task. The trade assignment was questionable but the lower labor grade worker was able to identify the problem as being from the other trade. This worker was allowed to complete the job in the presence of the higher grade worker even though it was of the other trade. The arbitrator determined that the lower grade worker should have received the temporary promotion.
85/90/03
A manager painted his own office. The union said that that was their work. The arbitrator found that managers like students could volunteer to paint their own offices.
85/09/09
The University improperly denied employees a temporary promotion when they performed higher labor grade work, as specified in the job description, for two or more hours. This decision also considered an inconsistent practice with respect to the temporary promotions. In the light of the inconsistencies, the specific duties as outlined in the job description prevailed.
84/08/01
An employee received a suspension for a variety of work rule violations. He had a prior disciplinary record but remained free from discipline for more than 18 months (contractual standard). The arbitrator found that the suspension was not progressive in nature and reduced the discipline to a written warning with back pay for the lost days. Subsequent to the suspension, the employee decided not to return to work after lunch since he was fixing his car. The arbitrator found that the discharge was built upon an improper suspension and this was inappropriate. The arbitrator reduced the termination to a suspension and reinstated the employee with back pay beyond the one week suspension.
84/07/06
The University improperly transferred workers to a new job and title under the guise of re-organization. The University also failed to confer with the union about the changes prior to their implementation. The arbitrator returned the workers to their former assignment and directed the University to meet with the union in the future if changes were contemplated.
84/02/10
Management decided to operate an equipment intensive work site by staffing it with two rather than three workers as the union insisted. The claim of an unsafe workplace was dismissed by the arbitrator when he found that injuries suffered by workers would not have been prevented even if there were three workers assigned. The arbitrator found that the University is required to and did furnish safety devices, safeguards and to use safe methods and practices.
84/01/23
An employee served a 30 day trial period for a new position. At the conclusion of the trial period the supervisor indicated that he failed due to poor quality and quantity. However, these deficiencies were never communicated to the individual, which would have given him an opportunity to correct his performance. The arbitrator reinstated the employee to the position in an extended trial period as provided for in the contract so management could effectively evaluate the employee while giving him an opportunity to become successful.
83/12/06
The question of whether or not an unreported absence of 5 or more days by an employee constituted a voluntary resignation was addressed by this arbitrator. The record showed that the employee was being treated for an ongoing medical problem at the Health Center and there was a breakdown in communication between the employee, his supervisor, and the Health Center. The arbitrator concluded that this ineffective communication indicated that the employee did not voluntarily resign his position. The arbitrator reinstated the worker with full back pay and benefits.
83/07/09
The question of jurisdiction between the mail handlers and light truck drivers ( a lower labor grade ) was the subject of this grievance. Management contended that this re-assignment of duties was based upon cost saving considerations. The arbitrator found that cost savings was not provided for in the contract but improved efficiency did allow some flexibility. However, the University failed to substantiate its claim of improved efficiency and the specific language of the job descriptions prevailed.
83/05/11
Prior to the current language which rectified this problem, an arbitrator found that the University improperly classified some 9 month jobs as temporary when these positions reoccurred year after year. The arbitrator reclassified these jobs as permanent.
83/04/30
The question of how a disparity in overtime equalization and resulting payments was to be resolved was the issue at this arbitration. The union sought to have everyone in the shop elevated to the level of the worker with the most hours. The arbitrator opted for a more reasonable approach which was elevating those below the average number of hours to the average level.
82/05/28
The University had an employee arrested for theft and forgery. The University then proceeded to discharge the worker prior to the trial and without any other hearing. The University’s inaction obviously left the determination of guilt for the courts to decide. The case was dismissed in the courts yet the employee remained terminated. The arbitrator found that the University failed to meet it’s burden of proof with respect to the allegations against the employee. The worker was reinstated with pay and privileges.
82/05/14
An employee was discharged for tardiness and sleeping on the job. The supervisor handled the matter by delaying talking with the employee for some time. The arbitrator concluded that the employee was not sleeping based upon the fact that the supervisor delayed confronting the employee with this and no one else observed this, thus relegating this to a counseling and not discipline. This conclusion was arrived at despite the fact the employee was previously suspended for sleeping on the job. With respect to the tardiness, the record spoke for itself but the arbitrator subscribed to every excuse that was proffered by the grievant. He did find that the excuses didn’t totally mitigate his responsibility to come to work. The arbitrator reduced the termination to a ten day suspension with back pay for the balance of his absence.
82/03/30
The University did violate the agreement when it assigned the TR&S drivers, instead of the Campus Mail drivers, to pick up a variety of mail from a number of locations and deliver it to a number of locations. The nature of TR&S deliveries includes unusually large, unscheduled, and infrequent deliveries as opposed to the mail service which usually deals with small, scheduled and regular deliveries. The deliveries in question were small, frequent, and scheduled. The arbitrator did not give the mail clerks any monetary award since they did not suffer any loss in pay. She did direct the reassignment of the work in the future.
81/06/30
An employee was discharged for insubordination. The arbitrator found that the actions were cause for discipline but discharge was too harsh since the employee did not threaten the supervisor and “did not irretrievably rupture the employer-employee relationship” The employee was reinstated with full seniority but suffered a loss of pay for the time out. The termination was essentially reduced to a suspension.
81/06/12
An employee responsible for handling money was observed to have thrown a customer receipt in the trash while pocketing the money ($3.20). The arbitrator sustained the termination for this act.
81/06/08
An employee’s bid for a promotion was denied by an arbitrator who agreed with the University’s position that the individual in question was not qualified for the promotion. The poor performance on a practical test as well as documented concerns about the individual’s performance throughout his career added to the record of lack of qualification for the job.
81/06/02
An arbitrator upheld the discharge of two workers who were intoxicated at work and disrupted the work place. The first employee did not attend the arbitration hearing but it was demonstrated that the University accommodated this individual by allowing leaves for medical treatment as well as other accommodations. It was clear that his actions were inappropriate, thus the sustained discharge. As for the second worker, while under the influence of alcohol, he drew a knife amid the commotion. The arbitrator found this to be sufficient grounds for termination.
80/07/16
An arbitrator supported the University’s position that a particular employee was not entitled to a temporary promotion in the absence of a higher labor grade worker when the job description specifically stated that the lower level worker would fill in for higher labor grade workers in their absence.
80/03/24
The arbitrator found that the University acted correctly when it reassigned workers in an effort to eliminate one classification of worker for operational reasons. Sufficient overlap existed in the remaining jobs and such overlap allowed for the work of the unit to be performed without the former position. The arbitrator indicated that the duties of the eliminated position were not exclusive to that position.
79/08/28
The University improperly denied a floating holiday to essential workers during a snow storm. The union showed that it was impossible for the two individuals in question to get to work due to the storm, thus the request was denied unreasonably.
79/07/23
An employee was discharged and ultimately reinstated by management thus converting the discharge to a suspension. Management did not credit the employee with vacation time for the time the employee was not working. Due to the fact that the grievant was reinstated, the arbitrator found that he was entitled to full credit for paid time off. (Note: This can be avoided in the return to work settlement.)
79/07/16
The arbitrator found that the employee was correctly issued a written reprimand for absenteeism. The arbitrator was not concerned so much with the number of days absent (28) as with the number of occurrences and the chronic nature of this employee’s absenteeism. Despite the fact that most of the absences were verifiably for medical reasons, the arbitrator found an 16% absenteeism rate to be excessive.
79/06/06
An employee failed to submit proof of illness as requested by management. Management properly denied the employee pay for the taken day. The arbitrator upheld the University’s action.
79/09/12
The University sought to have a higher labor grade worker fill in for a lower grade worker in the same area. The arbitrator found this practice permitted under the job description language which provides for someone doing lower labor grade work in their craft, trade, or department to meet operating conditions or to fill in for absent workers.
78/12/30
The union lost it’s bid to have two cases heard at arbitration by failing to comply with time limits in appealing these grievances to arbitration. Despite a long standing practice of extending limits verbally when one of the key parties was out of town, the arbitrator found that the informal arrangement was made with a previous Director of Labor Relations and not communicated to the then present one. Additionally the arbitrator clarified the language which permits the modification of the grievance up to the third step. He stated that the purpose was to correct errors or omissions and not to add to the grievance since that would circumvent management’s ability to adjust the grievance at an earlier step.
78/12/15
Management assigned one trade to work overtime with another trade on standby during a major storm. The standby workers sought overtime money stating that they were improperly overlooked. The arbitrator found the ” normally does the work” provision in the overtime section coupled with the University’s sound rationale for the assignment was sufficient to support the University’s position.
78/09/07 G
The University utilized a lower labor grade employee to replace a higher labor grade worker. The union unsuccessfully argued that the higher grade should get all the overtime work. The job descriptions and other sections of the contract supported management’s decision. The arbitrator went on to state that, the fact that a supervisor failed to notify the employee of overtime cancellation merely resulted in an inconvenience which should be avoided in the future but made no cash award for this oversight to the worker.
78/09/07 C
Management inappropriately used an unqualified employee to replace an absent worker on overtime when other qualified workers were available.
78/08/29
The University incorrectly demoted an illiterate worker where it had full knowledge of the employees inability to read and write. In fact, even with this knowledge, the University granted this employee a promotion to the position from which it tried to demote him due to his illiteracy. The arbitrator stated that the employee had an obligation to learn to read and write if he wanted to advance further.
78/08/31 Go
Newly hired employees are entitled to floating holidays on a prorated basis in their first year despite the contract’s silence on this issue. Management was correct in crediting the employee with 1 ¼ days every 3 months as opposed to the Union’s argument for complete allotments, even for those workers hired with only one month left in the year.
78/08/31 Gi
The University employed individuals to work as temporary workers and denied them benefits because their assignment was subject to a contract of fixed duration. The union failed to persuade that they became permanent workers since they exceeded the time limit of temporary as defined in the contract. The arbitrator ruled that the duration of these jobs was made known to the workers and did not fall under the protection of that language.
78/08/22
A jurisdictional dispute between two trades was the result of a number of assignments to one individual. The arbitrator found that duty overlap occurred in many job titles and there is the de minimus concept with respect to work performance. However, he found in this case that the nature and amount of work to this individual clearly exceeded the principles of overlap and de minimus and found for the union. The remedy was prospective in that new assignments had to better reflect the job description of the trade.
78/07/20
A simple oral warning was the subject of this case. The entire case turned on the credibility of the witnesses. The arbitrator stated that the supervisor failed to be more credible than the worker. The oral warning was removed.
78/06/29
An employee was found undressed in a locked room sleeping on a bed during work time. The employee claimed that he was ill. The arbitrator found that he had an obligation to tell his supervisor if he was ill and that he planned the sleeping episode. This action coupled with his previous history of sleeping on the job resulted in the sustaining of his termination.
78/03/30 K
Many individuals at the University either read thermostats or adjust them. During a lone holiday break, union workers were assigned to recording and adjusting thermostats. At the conclusion of the break, the union argued that was their exclusive work. The arbitrator found this not in the exclusive domain of the union.
78/03/20 Linsley
An individual received a low share of the overtime opportunities in a particular area. The arbitrator found that there was no time specified for rectifying such problems but the time for such adjustment had long expired. He awarded a reasonable share to the employee in question.
78/03/24
A rectified mistake in the awarding of a promotion prompted the ousted individual to file for back pay. The fact that the University promptly rectified it’s error removed any obligation to the individual who ultimately was not the successful bidder. No back pay was awarded.
77/04/21
A temporary promotion resulted in a change in hours as well as change in days of work for a 30 or more hour worker as of 1971 (language still exists). The arbitrator found that the contract restricted management from changing the days of work but did not restrict management from changing the hours of work. The employee was compensated at the overtime rate for the weekend work that he objected to performing.
77/02/25
Similar to the above case, the University changed the shift of a large body of employees from days to nights. The union argued that these senior employees had day of week and shift protection. The arbitrator found that these employees indeed had day of week protection but found no such protection for the hours in the day. The employer must be able to manage it’s operation, the arbitrator concluded.
77/02/04
The arbitrator agreed that at some point discipline would be appropriate for excessive absenteeism even if the absences were excused but had difficulty in determining what constituted excessive. The arbitrator was moved by the employee’s assurances that all of her problems were behind her and she could return as a productive member of the workforce. She was reinstated with back pay.
76/11/22
Employees were accused of malingering by their supervisor and an oral warning resulted.
The arbitrator found that there was no evidence to support the supervisor’s allegations. Furthermore, there were no productivity standards for this particular job. The supervisor further failed to investigate prior to issuing the discipline. The warning was rescinded.
76/11/18
An employee was disciplined for poor performance in a case where he was assigned work and informed his supervisor that he had no knowledge of how to perform that work and requested assistance. The supervisor instead of instructing or assisting the employee, disciplined him under the guise of rehabilitation. The arbitrator found this not to be rehabilitative in nature and ordered the removal of the warning.
76/11/02
This was a follow-up to a previous case where an employee was reinstated and back pay ordered. The University successfully argued that the back pay already paid took into account the unemployment compensation received by the worker. The arbitrator required no additional payments.
76/09/15
The University improperly changed a number of employees schedules by incorrectly interpreting the arbitrator’s previous award. The arbitrator ruled on the employees’ behalf indicating that “et al” covered all employees in that situation and not just the ones named on the grievance. In awarding back pay, the arbitrator awarded overtime for work that occurred outside what should have been their regular schedules but denied the request to pay these workers for time not worked.
76/07/07
An employee was correctly denied sick pay when he failed to provide reasonable proof of illness. His submission of a letter from a friend was insufficient to satisfy management. A strange twist occurred when the arbitrator concluded after stating the above that the witnesses before him were credible and therefore constituted proof in the arbitrator’s mind and she ordered the payment of sick pay.
76/03/01
The difficulty in this case arose out of a change in vacation benefits between two contracts in the middle of a calendar year. The parties were unable to resolve the pro-ration which was left to the arbitrator.
75/09/02
In a major reorganization, the union challenged the University’s right to rearrange work among job titles, eliminate job titles and create new titles. The University, based upon operational need and the application of sound management practices was permitted to make the necessary changes. The Union, on the other hand, prevailed in elevating the new titles to a higher permanent grade.
74/05/30
This arbitrator upheld a discharge in a classic absenteeism case where the employee had a record of substantial repeated absences over a reasonable period of time and had been given adequate warnings giving him an opportunity to correct his attendance, but to no avail.
74/04/25
The University sought to change some protected employees’ schedules. The protection was clear in the contract that some select groups of workers were exempt from change in their schedule. Others were also named in the grievance who were not covered by the protected language and those changes were deemed appropriate.
74/03/20
A union steward had cause to represent a number of grievants in various departments. The University paid for such union time in the past but decided to stop the practice. The University incorrectly prevented this individual from his 4 hour paid Department Steward time stating that he had already use his allotted time that week , even though the time spent was not for his department but for others. The arbitrator ruled that the specific language of the contract must be honored.
74/01/28
In a split decision the arbitrator decided that the University had no right to downgrade a position without discussing it with the Union when the University invited this individual to take the position and later effected the downgrade. The arbitrator later allowed the downgrade after proper notice and discussion. Additionally the Union ineffectively argued that the lower grade person should be a higher labor grade due to the nature of the duties. The arbitrator acknowledged the great similarity between the two positions but found that the differentiating duties must be the responsibility of the individual or actually performed by an individual before an upgrade could be granted. Since this was not the case, the downgrade remained in force.
73/10/10
An employee was disciplined for excessive absenteeism after a long absence due to an auto accident. The arbitrator found that this incident was the triggering event and that the University tolerated his previous record of absenteeism. This triggering event was not sufficient cause to warrant the discipline, thus the warning was rescinded.
73/09/10
This was a simple case of an employee seeking a temporary upgrade to replace an absent employee. The arbitrator meticulously reviewed every task performed and compared them to the higher labor grade job description and concluded that the employee did not perform the distinct duties of the higher grade.
73/08/02
A temporary promotion was necessary to meet contractual and operating obligations. Out of two unqualified individuals, the University selected the less senior candidate over the more senior one stating that the chosen worker was a faster learner that the other. This criteria was not born of the contractual language where seniority is listed as the method of selection where the candidates are qualified. The arbitrator in this case found that management could not assume that the other individual would not learn the job. Back pay was ordered.
73/05/21
A department instituted operational changes which resulted in staffing reductions. In a split decision, the arbitrator found that the operational change was contractually sound but that a small group of employees were protected from change as part of an earlier agreement.
73/03/05
The University failed to transfer an employee desiring the transfer when he had more seniority than the one selected for transfer, despite the fact that the grieving worker was on a different shift. The arbitrator concluded that no shift distinction existed in the language therefore overlooking the employee on a different shift caused the violation.
72/09/20
Under new seniority language at the time of the grievance, the union sought to have a particular worker promoted where he was deemed unqualified. The arbitrator found that the University acted reasonably with respect to evaluating the qualifications of the grieving individual.
72/09/08
As two positions were vacated in two units, the University correctly replaced those with lower labor grade positions in light of the fact that the operations of the unit were modified to justify the reductions.
72/05/15
In a sign of compassion, an arbitrator reinstated, without back pay, an employee who was ” marginal and who should have been discharged long ago.” Because management was so tolerant of worse offenses than that of the one that resulted in the termination, the arbitrator put him back to work.
70/08/27
A supervisor and former bargaining unit member bid on a position back into the bargaining unit and was improperly awarded the position over a bargaining unit member. The arbitrator found that the supervisor had no standing over the “employee” as defined in the agreement who is one covered by the contract. It was also stated that the supervisor could be awarded the position if there were no competing qualified bargaining unit members and be credited with former seniority as outlined in the contract.
69/04/10
Three successive refusals of overtime in the face of a direct order to work with no apparent reason for the refusals resulted in the sustained termination of a worker.
File last updated
March 19, 1998