1837 Dickey v. UAW Region 8

In this case, the Board focuses on whether the International Representative had a rational basis for his decision to withdraw Appellant’s termination grievance.  The Company’s Attendance Control Policy places the burden upon the employee to substantiate that a period of absence falls within the non-chargeable category.  On April 18, 2019, when the Company could not accommodate Appellant’s medical restrictions, she was advised to obtain the proper medical documentation to establish that her absence was non-chargeable.  On April 30, 2019, the Company issued a disciplinary warning to Appellant based upon her April 18 and 22 absences.  At that point, Appellant was or should have been aware that the Company considered the April 18 and 22 absences chargeable and would continue to count the hours against her under its attendance policy unless and until proper documentation was received.  The International Representative’s decision to withdraw the grievance was reasonable.  In his experience, the Company applies its attendance policy strictly, as it had done in the case of Appellant.  He also reasonably concluded that the grievance was unlikely to prevail in arbitration because Appellant admittedly could not provide sufficient medical documentation to cover the April 18 and 22 absences.