Typically, employers of unionized employees must negotiate changes to terms and conditions of employment for those bargaining unit members.  PELRA makes it an obligation for public employers to meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of public employees in an appropriate unit regarding terms and conditions of employment.  In the arbitration between the Minnesota School Employees Association and Meeker and Wright Special Education Cooperative, (“MAWSECO”) this didn’t happen.

In that case, four months after the hire of an employee, the employer realized it failed to recognize the employee’s previous experience in placing her at her starting wage.  Two months after she started, the employer moved the employee from the second step on the scale to the fifth.  Four months later, the union became aware of the change, and grieved the raise, alleging it violated the collective bargaining agreement.  The employee did not take part in the grievance, both because she liked the raise, and she was not a paying member of the union.

The contract between the parties defined “grievance” as “an allegation by an employee regarding a dispute or disagreement between the employee and MAWSECO as to the interpretation or application of this agreement.”  It also limited the timeframe for the fling of grievances to 20 days after the date of the event giving rise to the grievance.  The employer argued that the contract not violated, the union had no standing to bring the grievance on the employee’s behalf (based on the language of the collective bargaining agreement), and that the grievance was untimely.

Arbitrator Joe Daly heard the case, and while he did not address the question of whether the union could bring a grievance on behalf of a non-paying member, he found that the union did not have standing to file a grievance for the employee, based on the contract language.  In addition, he stated that while unions can typically file a grievance on behalf of members when multiple employees may be affected, the union failed to do so when it filed a grievance only based on the rate of pay for a single employee, and not other aggrieved individuals.

On the other issues, the arbitrator found that because the union did not find out about the rate change until four months after it occurred, the grievance was timely.  On the merits, the arbitrator first held that the initial rate of pay was established by an accountant in error while the human resources director was just starting her job.  In addition, he found the collective bargaining agreement allows for initial placement at a higher step on the pay scale, and that the contract would not have been violated, even if the union had standing to grieve.

There are a number of ways for an employer to win a grievance.  The best way is to always be right and not violate your contract.  However, command over the terms of your collective bargaining agreement and grievance process can expedite the grievance process or make it so the union cannot challenge an employer’s decision altogether.  If you or your organization need assistance in navigating the grievance arbitration process or winning in arbitration, contact Wiley Reber Law, for arbitration experience that works.