Grievance Information Detail
Multiple awards:
Modified: Issue: 1-day fine Remedy: Received 1-days backpay, discipline expunged and/or negotiated settlement reached. Arbitrability: Procedural: No Substantive: No What Happened: The grievant was charged with violation of Rule #3h-AWOL, when the grievant was absent on 4/7 and 4/8, 1997, and had insufficient leave balance to cover his absences. Problems/Comments: The Union argues disparate treatment, stating that other employees had insufficient leave to cover their balances and were charged with 3h-AWOL but received only a written reprimand and the grievant's discipline should be reduced to a written reprimand. Mgt. maintains that the 1-day is appropriate on the first offence of AWOL. To date the union has not provided sufficient evidence of disparate treatment.
Denied: Grievant was charged with violation of Rule #3H - AWOL after being absent for two days with insufficient leave to cover the absences. The Grievant was fined one day’s pay. The Grievant did received proper notice of the Arbitration hearing, but did not attend. The Arbitrator denied the grievance because Management proved that the Grievant knew the procedure for requesting other forms of leave when he was out of sick leave and that he did not make a similar request in this instance.
Modified: Issue: 1-day fine Remedy: Received 1-days backpay, discipline expunged and/or negotiated settlement reached. Arbitrability: Procedural: No Substantive: No What Happened: The grievant was charged with violation of Rule #3h-AWOL, when the grievant was absent on 4/7 and 4/8, 1997, and had insufficient leave balance to cover his absences. Problems/Comments: The Union argues disparate treatment, stating that other employees had insufficient leave to cover their balances and were charged with 3h-AWOL but received only a written reprimand and the grievant's discipline should be reduced to a written reprimand. Mgt. maintains that the 1-day is appropriate on the first offence of AWOL. To date the union has not provided sufficient evidence of disparate treatment.
Denied: Grievant was charged with violation of Rule #3H - AWOL after being absent for two days with insufficient leave to cover the absences. The Grievant was fined one day’s pay. The Grievant did received proper notice of the Arbitration hearing, but did not attend. The Arbitrator denied the grievance because Management proved that the Grievant knew the procedure for requesting other forms of leave when he was out of sick leave and that he did not make a similar request in this instance.