1622 Lartigue v. Region 1

The casino unequivocally invoked the seven-day notice policy and denied Lartigue’s request for union leave based on it. At that point, the proper procedure would have been for Lartigue to ask a member of the International Union staff to have her excused. If that failed, her only option was to report to work and file a grievance over what she perceived as selective enforcement of the seven-day notice rule. Instead, she simply defied the employer’s instruction to report to work on that day. Her defiance subjected her to discipline in accordance with the casino’s attendance and punctuality policy, and there was little that the local union could argue in defense of her actions. The casino’s requirement that requests for union leave should not interfere with its operations is entirely reasonable. Lartigue argues that Representative Adams-Johnson treated her unfairly in obtaining leaves for union business because of past disagreements. The casino was not responsible for whatever ill will may have existed between Lartigue and Adams-Johnson. Lartigue’s disputes with Adams-Johnson cannot be addressed in the context of a grievance against the employer.