PART FOUR: THE LABOR RELATIONS PROCESS IN ACTION
CHAPTER 11: GRIEVANCE AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
LABOR NEWS: NEW YORK HOTEL STRIKE AVOIDED
CHAPTER 11: OUTLINE
I. Grievance—perceived violation of a contract provision
A. Majority of time on day-to-day administration of contract is handling grievances.
B. Agreement should have established process to handle grievances; otherwise
grievances can disrupt the workplace. (Profile 11-1)
II. Sources of Employee Grievances
A. Clarifying contract provisions under changing conditions
B. Support for future negotiations
C. Rectifying a contract violation
D. Show of power
E. Increased pay
III. Steps in a Grievance Procedure (Figure 11-1)
A. Step 1: Employee, Steward, Supervisor
2. Employee can be advised on merits of claim.
3. Case 11.1 explores the issue of when the grievance procedure is not
followed.
B. Step 2: Written Grievance—Formal Stage (Figure 11-2)
2. Forces grievant to set forth the facts.
3. Employee and steward meet with supervisor in an attempt to settle.
C. Step 3: Shop Steward, Department Head
1. If grievance isn’t settled in Step 2, appeal to this level.
D. Step 4: Union Grievance Committee, Director of Personnel and Industrial
Relations
1. Plant-wide union grievance committee reviews grievance—try to settle
with management’s representative.
E. Step 5: Arbitration (provided in 98 percent of contracts)
2. Decision is final and binding as agreed upon.
3. Decision can be appealed if:
a. Collusion
b. Award exceeds arbitrator’s authority
IV. Functions of Grievance Procedures
A. Conflict Management Resolution
B. Agreement Clarification
C. Communication
V. Employee Misconduct
A. Misconduct offenses
1. Minor—corrective action possible
a. First offense oral warning
2. Serious—possible discharge for first offense (Figure 11-3)
B. Arbitrator’s Key Factors
1. Not a question of guilt but
a. Consistent enforcement
2. Twelve most common examples of employee misconduct
a. Damaging company property
b. Discourtesy
c. Dishonesty
d. Dress and grooming
VI. Disciplinary Procedures
A. Vital Aspect of Labor–Management Relationship
1. Helps maintain a productive workforce
B. Disciplinary Investigation Procedure
2. Get the facts
4. Ascertain motive
6. Discipline without discharge
7. Act timely
C. Restrictions on Employee Discipline
1. Discipline for union-related activity
D. Grounds for Discharge (Table 11–1)
236
2. “Just Cause” (see Case 11.3
3. Most contracts specify offenses for discharge.
a. Violation of leave provision
d. Theft/dishonesty
E. “Tips from the Experts” discusses how to ensure a fair grievance procedure.
VII. Grievance Mediation
A. Intervention of outside mediator
B. Most useful means for avoiding arbitration
C. Not a decision process—not a final step
VIII. Public Sector Grievance Issues
A. Grievances generally processed the same as in private sector.
B. Profile 11-2 FLRA collaborative and alternative dispute resolution activities.
C. Public employees have constitutionally protected rights.
237
CHAPTER 11: CASE DISCUSSION
Case 11.1: Untimely Filing Of A Grievance
1. Do you agree with the arbitrator that because the union failed to follow the letter of the
grievance procedure when it jumped ahead to arbitration, the grievance should be
dismissed?
2. Would the arbitrator think differently if the company’s representative at each step of the
grievance procedure was the human resources director?
Case 11.2: “Gooseplay”
1. Explain why you agree or disagree with the ALJ’s decision that the company’s dismissal
of the two employees was not justified.
2. Explain why you agree or disagree with the NLRB’s decision to uphold the company’s
dismissal of the two employees.
Agree: The NLRB correctly pointed out that although the employee handbook had a
238
Case 11.3: Just Cause
1. Do you agree with the arbitrator’s decision? Explain.
2. This employee failed to attend because of a personal conviction. Do you think the
arbitrator would decide the same way for someone who overslept?
239
CHAPTER 11: END CASE DISCUSSION
Case Study 11.1: Insubordination of a Police Officer While in Pursuit of a Stolen Vehicle
Decision:
The arbitrator did not uphold the officer’s grievance because although his actions did not put the
public at risk, and technically the “pursuit” had been terminated when he turned off his lights and
Questions for Discussion
1. Was Officer A in pursuit of the suspect’s vehicle?
2. As an arbitrator, would you uphold or deny the grievance?
3. Would you change the punishment of Officer A from a one-day suspension to that of a
written warning?
4. What is the value to the police command in disciplining Officer A?
Case Study 11-2 Sleeping on the job
Decision:
Although three times seems more than enough to sustain termination, there was no actual
discipline administered to the Grievant for his previous similar offenses. There is a problem when
one considers the counseling and this incident as a second safety violation. There was no life
threatening safety issue as the truck was locked out. The level of danger is defined by the fact that
240
the shaking of the finger was the determined response in one incident and only a safety
observation was the level of action issued in the second incident. In this case the penalty of
discharge is found to be too severe. When it is as close as this one, the Employee gets the edge.
Questions for Discussion:
3. Should the Company’s treatment of the grievant for the first two “sleeping on the job”
incidents influence the outcome in this case? Explain.
2. Did the Company have just cause to dismiss the grievant for violating safety rules when
in each instance cited the truck was out of gear with the safety break on?
3. Is the union’s argument that the grievant just “appeared to be sleeping” creditable in the
absence of any testimony of support by the backhoe driver, a fellow union member?
CHAPTER 11: REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Why might both management and a union agree to a last chance agreement?
2. Explain the typical grievance process.
3. Describe how the concepts of authority and influence affect the grievance process.
4. Explain the steps of a grievance procedure.
Step 1: Employee, steward, supervisory
The purpose of this initial step is to explore the facts, and possibly reach an easy
resolution. Often the steward simply tries to “cool off” an employee and/or explain why
their “grievance” is in reality a “gripe.”
Step 2: Written Grievance
Step 3: Shop steward, department head
The purpose of this step is to allow a higher level of management to review the facts and
Step 4: Union Grievance Committee and Personnel Director
Step 5: Arbitration
Why do these steps exist?
To give the parties an opportunity to resolve issues that arise under a CBA without a
242
5. Discuss how disciplinary procedures affect the labor–management relationship.
To maintain a positive relationship it is critical that all members of the bargaining unit
6. What are the advantages and disadvantages of grievance mediation?
7. Why is progressive discipline used in misconduct cases involving minor offenses?
Progressive discipline is used in cases of minor misconduct because the employer and
union believe, and experience verifies, that most behaviors involved can be changed if
8. What serious misconduct offenses should always result in discharge?
Although labor experts may disagree, in general the following employee offenses usually
result in discharge:
• Sabotage of company property
• Theft or dishonesty
243
CHAPTER 11: YOU BE THE ARBITRATOR
Employee Writing Threats
1. As arbitrator, what would be your award and opinion in this arbitration?
As the arbitrator could not make a conclusive determination of the handwriting issue in
view of the conflicting opinions offered by the forensic experts, his decision had to be
made on other evidence or the lack of it. The arbitrator noted that when the grievant was
2. Explain why the relevant provisions of the CBA, as applied to the facts of this case,
dictate the award.
3. What actions might the employer and/or the union have taken to avoid this conflict?
The union which the grievant belonged to chose not to participate in management’s plan
244
CHAPTER 11: EXTRA CASES
Holiday Pay
Facts:
A contract clause gave employees holiday pay if they worked the day before or the day after a
holiday. It also allowed holiday pay to laid-off employees who actually worked the week before
or week after the week of the holiday. This was to keep the company from laying off employees
near a holiday to save money.
Decision:
The arbitrator found in the company’s favor. He pointed out that the employees were not laid off
“for lack of work” but had gone out on strike and could not begin work again because of
problems starting up an idle plant. The contract clause did not apply.
Questions for Discussion
1. Could the arbitrator’s decision be seen as penalizing employees for the strike?
2. If the strike had ended on December 23 and no employee was allowed back by the
company until December 27, then do you think the decision would be the same?
Discrimination
Facts:
Until a few years ago, there were not many black faculty members at Wilson High School, in a
suburb of Washington, D.C. Because of a court decision and of other factors, the situation began
Adapted from Morris Stone, Labor Grievances and Decisions (New York: American Arbitration Association, 1970)
pp. 93–95.
245
improving. Of 47 teachers assigned to that school since 1967, 33 were black, and although whites
still outnumbered blacks in 1968, the imbalance was clearly not what it used to be.
Against this background, Mrs. W., a [black] teacher with about 15 years of seniority in
the school system, transferred to Wilson High in 1968. Observing that there were 37 marked
parking spaces on school grounds, she applied for one of them. She was told, however, that the
Mrs. W.’s fellow union members did not agree with her complaint, and they tried to
appease her in some way. The school principal, himself black, suggested that she poll the teachers
for an opinion as to whether their long-established policy should be changed. She declined that
suggestion. One teacher––one of the four blacks who had an inside space—offered to give her his
position and park his car outside the schoolyard. This offer, too, was rejected. Finally, without the
union’s participation, she invoked the arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement,
and she appeared at the hearing with her own attorney. The defending party, or respondent, was
the District of Columbia Board of Education.
At the hearing, Mrs. W. and her attorney argued strongly against the building seniority
system, which they said discouraged black teachers from transferring to Wilson High. Going
beyond that, they accused the Board of Education of not moving properly to encourage such
transfers in order to correct racial imbalance.
The principal also said there was ample parking space available on the surrounding
streets, and the arbitrator took the trouble to confirm this fact in a personal survey of the area.
After hearing this testimony, and the testimony of other teachers who filled in some of
the details about the history of the grievance, the arbitrator asked both sides if there was anything
further they wished to say. On getting negative replies, he closed the hearing. He phrased the
issue to be decided as follows: “Is the assignment of parking spaces to teachers based on seniority
at Woodrow Wilson High School an unfair practice under existing laws or Board of Education
rules and regulations?”
Decision:
Reprinted with permission from Morris Stone, Labor Grievances and Decisions (New York: American Arbitration
Association, 1970) pp. 27–30.
246
The grievance was denied. Although the seniority system “is not free of imperfections,” the
arbitrator wrote, and although it occasionally results in “a seeming inequity,” in the long run it
serves a “useful and salutary purpose by giving priority status to employees with longer years of
Questions for Discussion
1. Mrs. W.’s grievance obviously deals with a matter of great concern to the public because
it touches on the public policy of achieving racially integrated school systems. Do you
think private arbitration was the proper forum for a decision on her grievance? Would it
have been better to take this case to court or to some other public agency?
2. One of the questions before the arbitrator was whether the building seniority system was
contrary to law. It happens that the arbitrator in this case was not only a lawyer, but also a
retired judge. Nevertheless, labor–management arbitrators do not have to be trained in the
law, and in any event, their decisions are not usually subject to reversals, even if they err
on matters of law. Does this circumstance make arbitration an inappropriate place to
decide Mrs. W.’s grievance?
3. The arbitrator’s own observation and the testimony of a witness led him to the conclusion
that there was parking space available to Mrs. W. on the street. If this were not the case,
that is, if parking was hard to find, do you think he might have decided the case
differently?
4. Mrs. W. had turned down a suggestion that she poll the teachers to find out whether they
would like to change the procedures for assigning parking spaces. Do you think it would
have been wise for the arbitrator to order such a poll to be taken? If he did that, do you
think he would be bound by the majority opinion?
5. The arbitrator said the issues were whether the building seniority system violated either
the law or Board of Education rules, and he answered both questions in the negative.
247
Assuming he believed that it wasn’t contrary to law, but that it should be contrary to law,
could he uphold the grievance?
6. This case had many unusual aspects, one of which is that although the proceeding took
place under a collective bargaining agreement, the union was not a party to it. Do you
think that individuals should be permitted to invoke arbitration without the support of the
union in all instances?
Crippled Old Lady
Facts:
The claimant is a 68-year-old woman who suffers from lameness due to polio. She has been a
member of an office workers’ union for 36 years, and also was employed for 36 years as a
clerical worker by another union. She was asked by her boss to change her work schedule on the
next workday from 7:00 A.M.–3:00 P.M. to 9:00 A.M.–5:00 P.M. She told her boss she could not
change her schedule because she was needed the next day to accompany her husband, whose
elderly mother would be having an operation. The claimant was terminated on the spot and
replaced by a 20-year-old woman.
The claimant filed a grievance with her union, alleging that the firing was not based upon
her refusal to change her schedule, but upon her age and handicap. She cited her boss’s alleged
reference to her as a “crippled old lady” as proof. Pursuant to the collective bargaining contract
under which she worked, her union and her union-employer convened a “Board of Adjustment”
consisting of representatives from both unions to attempt to resolve her grievance. When they
were unable to do so, they decided to move the case on to arbitration. At no time did her union
suggest to her that her claim was weak and should be dropped.
Under the agreement, a move to arbitration set very specific steps and a very short time
frame in which to take those steps: Within 24 hours, the panel was to designate one member as a
neutral chairperson; if they failed to do that, they were to ask the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to do so. When the FMCS came back with names, they had 24 hours to
choose the arbitrator.
In this case, however, the two parties, the claimant’s union and her union-employer,
agreed to waive the 24-hour period for selecting an arbitrator. At this point, the case just stopped.
The claimant attempted to get her union to process her grievance or tell her why it would not, but
she received no response. The claimant decided to go around the grievance process and sue her
union-employer directly without her own union’s help. Her union-employer objected, saying that
she had to let the grievance procedure resolve the issue.
Decision:
248
The court said she could bypass contract enforcement because her union breached its duty to her
by their arbitrary, discriminatory, and bad faith failure to process her grievance. Evidently,
because her union at no time agreed to dismiss the claim and, in fact, pursued it to a
recommendation for arbitration, the court believes the union could not argue that it found her
claim meritless.
Questions for Discussion
1. It is a union’s duty to its members to pursue a legitimate grievance on his or her behalf to
a final decision. The claimant felt her union had breached that duty. Do you agree?
Explain your answer.
2. As an employee of a union for 36 years, and presumably a member in good standing of
another union for an equal number of years, did the claimant deserve better treatment
from both her own union and her union-employer?
3. Does an example like this case lead you to believe that unions can or cannot successfully
pursue more “diverse” membership?
249
CHAPTER 11: EXERCISE AND EXERCISE GUIDANCE
Source of Grievances
Purpose:
To understand the different sources of grievances in the workplace.
Task:
Divide the class into teams. Each group should survey one of the following types of local
businesses to see what types of grievances commonly arise at their workplace. Share the results:
Type of business
Governmental unit
Manufacturer
Retailer
Professional firm
Your university
Cause of Grievance
Number of Grievances per Year
Violation of leave provision
Unauthorized strike participation
Unauthorized absence
Dishonesty or theft
Violation of rules
Insubordination
Intoxication
Failure to obey safety rules
Tardiness
Drug or alcohol abuse
Sexual or racial harassment
Other
It might be of interest for the students to predict which category of grievance in each type of
business will be the main type experience by that business. The survey results can be discussed in
light of these predictions. Students can also discuss why they thought certain grievances would
predominate in one business but not another.