The Teamsters Union is seeking to set aside an award of Arbitrator David B. Hart.
Grievant had been employed as a shuttle bus driver, driving for clients and customers of Compass. A client of Compass requested that grievant be removed from its account based on an anonymous complaints from passengers. Shortly thereafter, Compass terminated grievant's employment.
The cba between Teamsters and Compass provides:
Under direction from any client or customer, an employee may be removed from service of that client or customer if it is deemed the employee is not performing to the client or customer's satisfaction. The employee, however, may bid to work for another client or customer, unless the employee engaged in misconduct or actions warranting discharge from the Employer. If no positions are available with another client or customer, the will be deemed laid off.
The dispute over grievant's termination was submitted to Arbitrator Hart for resolution. Arbitrator Hart denied the grievance. In doing so he relied on the "persona non grata doctrine." Essentially this doctrine applies when an employee, assigned to the premises of a third party is prohibited by that third party from providing services to it. In certain circumstances an employer may be able to dismiss such an employee without proving just cause. Arbitrator Hart concluded:
... the Grievant became disqualified due to the fact that there were no bus driver positions available to him due to two clients/customers demanding his immediate removal from their accounts.
He found further:
The Company did not need meet the standard for termination of the Grievant's employment because of misconduct, even though his alleged and partially admitted behavior was a violation of the Driver Manifesto and multiple provisions of the parties' Agreement; rather, the Company properly terminated his employment due to his persona non grata disqualification.
In its Petition to Vacate, the Union alleges that the Arbitrator improperly modified the cba and ignored its requirement that an employee removed from a customer account who is unsuccessful in finding a position with another client or customer "will be deemed laid off." It notes that the cba protects an employees seniority upon removal from an account by a customer and asserts:
The Arbitrator's decision that the Employer could terminate the Grievant based solely on his "persona non grata" removal from an account and that just cause did not apply exceeded his authority and modified the parties CBA.
The Union seeks remand of the dispute to the Arbitrator for resolution in a manner "consistent with the Court's opinion."
Indiana Michigan Power Company v. Local Union 1392 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
International brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1393 v. Indiana Michigan Power Co.
These two cases (here and here) are competing efforts to vacate or confirm a back pay award of Arbitrator Cynthia Stanley. Arbitrator Stanley had previously sustained a grievance, ordering the grievant's reinstatement with full back pay and benefits. The parties were unable to agree upon the amount of back pay owed. The Employer calculated the amount as "negative" $29,166.51. The Union calculated the amount owed as $244,850.83 plus 31,604.64 in retirement benefits.
Arbitrator Stanley agreed in large part with the Union, finding the amount owed as $264,438.89.
The employer seeks to vacate that award, It asserts that the award includes amounts predating the termination, includes overtime and double time in amounts in excess of what grievant had historically worked, and failed to deduct any amount for work grievant could have performed during the back pay period. The Union seeks to have the award confirmed and for an award of its' attorney fees.
Lewis County Rural Electric Cooperative Association and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union Number 2
The Company seeks to vacate an award of Arbitrator Richard Van Kalker sustaining a grievance claiming that it had violated the cba by reassigning work that had been done by a bargaining unit employee to a non bargaining unit individual.
Certain work relating to the Company's website had ben performed by grievant. That work was transferred to the Company's Manager of Member Services/Government Relations. The Company raised a number of points in its defense of the grievance, including the management rights clause and the lack of impact on the grievant who suffered no layoff or reduction in hours. In his award, Arbitrator Van Kalker recognized the breadth of the management rights clause, but concluded that it "does not nullify, modify, diminish, or alter Article IV [the recognition clause] of the CBA." He concluded:
In the case before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator finds that the administration of the Company's website is routinely and customarily performed by an employee of the bargaining unit, to wit, the Grievant has performed administration of the Company's website since its inception in 2002. The Grievant has the knowledge and skills available to perform such work. The Grievant has always performed the work in an excellent manner. The Arbitrator would be remiss of his duties to find that administration of the Company's website is not bargaining unit work. As such, it was a violation of the CBA for the Company to reassign the administration of the Company's website from a bargaining unit member to a non-bargaining unit member.
The Company argues in its Complaint that the award does not draw its essence from the lawful provisions of the cba, fails to follow the specific provisions of the contract and instead relies on "implied provisions." It notes specifically that the Arbitrator did not discuss the language of the cba authorizing the Company to contract out "any portion of its work; provided however, that it shall not do so if such would result in any of the employees of the Cooperative being laid off during the tern of the Agreement."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete