Processing of grievances

The PRB’s jurisdiction over appeals related to the processing of grievances is limited to claims that the matter was improperly handled because of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management, or that the disposition or handling of the matter was devoid of any rational basis.  Here, Appellant does not claim that ...

The PRB’s jurisdiction over claims arising from the disposition of collective bargaining grievances is limited to the question whether the matter was improperly handled because of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management or whether the disposition was devoid of a rational basis.  In this case, the PRB has no reason ...

Appellant does not claim that the International Representative’s decision to settle her grievance was the product of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management.  Accordingly, the PRB focuses on whether the decision to settle the grievance had a rational basis.  The International Representative thoroughly investigated Appellant’s termination grievance but found that ...

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 ...

The PRB finds that the Zone Committeeperson’s decision to withdraw the grievance was rational.  Multiple witnesses asserted that Appellant had acted in an aggressive manner toward a co-worker.  In addition, a supervisor witnessed part of the incident.  As the Union recognized, employers increasingly view threatening behavior in the workplace as ...

The PRB’s jurisdiction over appeals related to the processing of grievances is limited to claims that the matter was improperly handled because of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management, or that the disposition or handling of the matter was devoid of any rational basis.  Here, the International Representative relied heavily ...

Appellant does not assert that the withdrawal of her grievance was motivated by fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management.  Nor is there any basis on the Record to suggest that any such factors influenced the handling of her grievance.  Rather, Appellant disagrees with the International Representative’s conclusion that she was ...

Appellant has appealed the decision to withdraw her grievances challenging her demotion from a higher paid position.  The International Representative’s decision to withdraw the grievances was not irrational.  The Company produced documentation showing that it had provided extensive training to Appellant and identifying deficiencies in her performance.  Appellant has claimed ...

The IEB incorrectly held that this appeal was untimely.  This case involves an appeal from the International Representative’s decision not to pursue further Appellant’s reinstatement.  Accordingly, the applicable time limit under Article 33, §4(c) is 30 days from when Appellant first learned of the International Representative’s decision on October 30, ...

The PRB agrees that the relief sought by Appellants effectively has been granted.  Appellants sought to have their Local removed from the jurisdiction of the Region 2B Director and the assigned International Representative.  The Regional Director has now resigned, and the International Representative has been reassigned.  Appellants other complaints regarding ...