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 ΒΌ 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
