1852 Bell v. UAW Region 1

Case No: 1852


The International Representative made a rational decision that the Union was unlikely to prevail on Appellant’s grievance alleging harassment and a hostile work environment due to a lack of evidence to substantiate the claim.  The Representative also reasonably concluded that the plant closure meant that Appellant was no longer subjected to the work environment which gave rise to the grievance.  Appellant’s principal argument on appeal is that the Representative failed to appreciate that the grievance was intended to include the Company’s refusal to transfer Appellant to the Warren Tech Center, even though the Tech Center is not specifically mentioned in the grievance.  However, Appendix A of the National Agreement provides a process for addressing issues related to transfers between facilities which is separate from the grievance process.  Appellant’s claims that the grievance settlement was tainted by collusion with management and retaliation for her union activity are based solely on speculation and, accordingly, cannot be sustained.