Monthly Law Journal Article: Insubordination: The principle of “obey and grieve”, 2009 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     An Illinois public employer's policy that its employees must reimburse fines paid by the employer due to red light camera violations is a disciplinary penalty "because it imposes a monetary sanction on the employee." In dismissing a lawsuit brought by a union, an appellate court panel concludes that the grievance mechanism provided in the bargaining agreement is the sole remedy of a public employee. Amalgamated Transit Workers Union v. Pace, #1-10-0631, 2011 Ill. App. Lexis 5.
     Federal labor board concludes that a private prison operator did not violate federal labor relations laws when it discharged a nurse, who had engaged in the protected concerted activity of pursuing discrimination grievances, after she exhibited antagonistic behavior that provoked two registered nurses to resign. Corrections Corp. of America and Nelson, #26-CA-23180, 354 NLRB No. 105, 2009 NLRB Lexis 359 (NLRB 2009).
     Although the filing of a grievance is a constitutionally protected activity under the First Amendment’s Petition clause, a plaintiff also must present evidence that would allow a jury find that the filing of the grievance was a substantial motivating factor in the decision to impose discipline. Viola v. Bor. of Throop, #3:06cv1930, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 88176; prior ruling at 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 59470 (M.D. Pa.).
     Management should object to the timeliness of a grievance at the time it is filed, or promptly thereafter. Arbitrator holds that where management does not file an objection prior to the arbitration hearing, the issue of timeliness is waived. Dept. of Homeland Security (Customs) and AFGE L-2724, Case #06-03893-8, 123 LA 1524 (Skulina, 2007).
     Arbitrator holds that an unsigned grievance is arbitrable; the deviation from the bargaining agreement was too trivial, the agency was not prejudiced by omission of a signature, and management could have easily demanded that the union sign the grievance. Federal Bureau of Prisons and AFGE L-1007, FMCS Case #06/01920, 123 LA (BNA) 1254 (Sergent, 2007).
     Arbitrator finds that a union violated the bargaining agreement by withholding names of employees that had complained of a supervisor's harassment and by advising witnesses not to cooperate with management's investigation of the grievance. The union wanted the grievance to advance to arbitration and did not want a settlement at a lower step. Although the complainants feared retaliation, resolution of disputes at the lowest level is encouraged. U.S. Army Medical Material Agency and AFGE L-2484, FMCS Case #06/59248-1 & 07/00663, 123 LA (BNA) 897 (Hewitt, 2007).
     Fifth Circuit holds that when a bargaining agreement establishes a mandatory grievance procedure and vests the union with the exclusive right to pursue claims on behalf of aggrieved employees, members of the bargaining unit lack legal standing to challenge the results of the grievance process in court. The sole exception is an unfair representation claim. Mitchell v. Continental Airlines, #05-20791, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5439 (5th Cir.)
     Massachusetts Labor Commission annuls a ten-day suspension of a sheriff's employee, who at a grievance hearing, exclaimed "Oh my God, what a liar," referring to the testimony of a major. Filing a grievance is a protected activity, and impulsively calling a superior a liar during in response to a perceived inaccuracy, fell within the protection of the state's collective bargaining laws. Bristol County Sheriff's Dept. and Mass. Corr. Officers Feder. Union Case No. MUP-03-3900 (Mass. Lab. Rel. Cmsn. 2007)
.      Police officers are not required to follow a grievance procedure in the police dept. handbook before bringing suit in state court for unpaid standby duty. No statute allows a city to create a grievance procedure that requires compliance before bringing a civil suit in court. City of McAllen, Texas v. Zellers, #13-06-470-CV, 12 WH Cases2d (BNA) 670, 2007 Tex. App. Lexis 1499.
     Federal court holds that a firefighter, who was demoted after filing grievances relating to unsafe training conditions, spoke on a matter of public concern and the fire chief was not entitled to qualified immunity. Eudy v. Ridgeland, #3:06cv50, 2006 U.S. Dist Lexis 84958 (S.D. Miss. 2006). {N/R}
     Pennsylvania Supreme Court declines to review an arbitration award holding that a grievant is not required to file a second grievance, contesting the filing of additional grounds supporting his termination. McCandless v. McCandless P.O.A., #14 WAP 2005, 2006 Pa. Lexis 1282, 18 LRRM (BNA) 2113 (Penna. 2006). {N/R}
     A union president's decision not to read an e-mail that contained a revised payment schedule for prescription drugs "does not relieve him of responsibility for its contents" and the union's ULP charge was time barred. City of Boston and AFSCME, C-93, L-1526, Mass.Lab. Rel. Cmsn. # MUP-02-3623 (2006). {N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that a contractual 40-day time limit to file a grievance does not apply to continuing violations. A failure to portal-to-portal overtime since 1997 is grievable. Federal Bureau of Prisons and AFGE L- 607, 121 LA (BNA) 1108, FMCS Case #04/56161 (Bordone, 2005). {N/R}
     Grievance challenging the suspension of a police officer was properly filed with chief of police, even though the bargaining agreement stated it should be filed with the city manager or his designee; it was reasonable for the grievant to conclude that police chief was "designee" of the city manager. City of Okmulgee and FOP L-96, 119 LA (BNA) 1227 (Robinson, 2004). {N/R}
     Appeals court reverses a grievance determination because the Step III hearing officer was a subordinate of the Step II responder. An evidentiary hearing by the Merit Board could have cured the procedural defect. Mayer v. Montgomery Co., #2224 Sept. 2000, 143 Md. App. 261, 794 A.2d 704, 2002 Md. App. Lexis 51 (Md.Sp.App. 2002). [2002 FP Sep]
     Federal appeals court enforces a bargaining agreement clause requiring arbitration of employment claims; worker was not entitled to bring a suit to enforce her ADA claims. Austin v. Owens-Brockway, 78 F.3d 875, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 4370, 70 FEP Cases (BNA) 272 (4th Cir. 1996); cert. den. 519 U.S. 980, 117 S.Ct. 432, 1996 U.S. Lexis 6861. [1996 FP 131]
     Federal court dismisses a discrimination suit because the employee failed to file a grievance under the bargaining agreement, which would have led to binding arbitration. Austin v. Owens-Brockway, 844 F.Supp. 1103 (W.D.Va. 1994). [1995 FP 73]
     Adoption of a grievance procedure did not create an expectation of continued employment. Stough v. Gallagher, 967 F.2d 1523 (11th Cir. 1992). {N/R}
     Dismissed employee must follow remedies contained in bargaining agreement; injunctive relief not available. Romano v. Mancini, 412 A.2d 1131.
     A union member was precluded from suing an union-provided attorney for malpractice. The union selected and compensated the attorney; there was no attorney-client relationship. “Although the attorney may well have certain ethical obligations to the grievant, his principal client is the union; it is the union that has retained him, is paying for his services, and is frequently the party to the arbitration proceedings.” Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244/at 1258 (9th Cir. 1994). {N/R}
     Consent decree establishes grievance committee and binding arbitration; political tensions reduced. Harceg v. Brown, 512 F.Supp. 788 (N.D. Ill. 1981).
     See also: Arbitration Procedures.