Episode 119: Grieving the Decision letter instead of the Notice of Proposed Removal. Beating management’s timeliness argument

This episode of From A to Arbitration focuses on the nuances of grieving a decision letter versus a notice of proposed removal in NALC cases, emphasizing the importance of procedural knowledge. Corey starts by acknowledging technical difficulties and previews upcoming episodes on emergency placement and time-record falsification issues.

The core of the episode is a detailed analysis of the timeliness of grievances, examining the difference between a “notice of proposed removal” (a preliminary action) and a “letter of decision” (the final action). Corey meticulously dissects contract provisions (especially Article 15 and related sections of the JCAM) to argue that a grievance on a decision letter is considered timely, even if a notice of proposed removal wasn’t grieved within the 14-day window.

He contrasts this with the union’s and management’s positions on this issue, citing specific examples of past arbitration decisions that support his position, particularly those in contrast to the APWU’s precedent-setting agreement. He emphasizes that this approach is critical because management will frequently argue for untimeliness of grievances if a proposed notice, rather than a decision letter, is grieved.

The episode highlights the importance of understanding due process and Corey’s insistence on challenging management’s procedural arguments at every level. Corey advocates for a more aggressive approach to grievance processing, urging members to demand detailed charges and a thorough investigation before disciplinary action takes place.

He concludes by emphasizing the critical importance of union members knowing their rights and the union representatives’ need to protect these rights at every level. Corey predicts future challenges and emphasizes the need for proactive, informed members, and promises to continue this type of advocacy in future episodes. The overall message is a strong call to action emphasizing the need for a proactive and knowledgeable union membership to combat management’s potential abuse of power.

‘In dubio pro reo‘ Doubts must go in favor of the accused