Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • SBC Award 1

    Transféré par

    jckc107l
    42 vues15 pages
    Arbitration award Michael Rappaport (termination)

    Titre original

    SBC award 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Arbitration award Michael Rappaport (termination)

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    42 vues15 pages

    SBC Award 1

    Transféré par

    jckc107l
    Arbitration award Michael Rappaport (termination)

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 15
    ARBITRATION AWARD In the Matter of the axbitration Between: COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA and SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO- ee nee eee subject: Suzanne Guajardo Termination Appearances: For the Union: For the Employer: acbitrater: CASE #AAA 71-300-00227-94 GRIEVANCE #6-94-257 David Van 0s van Os, White & Vasquez 200 East 6th Street. Hanning Row Suite 206 Austin, Texas 78701 Dale Hartung James S. Golden Southwestern Bell Telephone Company 1010 North St. Mary’s Room 1403 San Antonio, Texas 78215 Michael D. Rappaport 15445 Ventura Blvd. suite 82 Sherman oaks, Ca. 91403 FRANKEN EXHIBIT E L BACKGROUND. The case before the arbitrator arose out of a dispute botween Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (herein “Company") and the Communications Workers of America {herein "Union™) over the termination of employee Suzanne Guajardo (herein “Grievant"). At the time of her separation the Grievant held the title of communications Technician (herein "Conm Tech"}. As a Comm Tech, from early 1988 she performed maintenance work on electro— mechanical switches in central offices. In the 1970/s a new generation of switches employing electronic technology was developed to replace the electro mechanical switches on which the Grievant normally worked. In order to develop an understanding and proficiency in tne maintenance of the electronic switches, an educational program was developed in the late 1970's to teach employees the concept of the electronics utilized in the new switches as well as the skills needed to perform naintenance on the switches. The training program consisted of a series of training nodules through waich the Employee would progress over a period of time. In order to progress from one module to the next the employee was required to fake and pass a test on each module. in order to deternine the aptitude of employees to train and work on the new electronic Switches employees were required to take a screening test known as the ESM before being able to attend the electronic training program. 3 was contemplated that over a period of years the Comm Tech jobs available in the central offices would diminish as the conversion to the nev electronic technology took place. This meant that in order to maintain their positions with the Company, employees would have to learn the new technology- In 1985 the Grievant wos working in the Rio Grande Valley office. Comm Techs working in that office were informed that they would have six opportunities to take the ZSM test over about a six year period. The Grievant took the test on three occasions Beginning in April 1990 and again in October 1991 and December 17, 2983, She did not pass the test on any of those occasions. As a Tesuit of her failure to pass the ESM test, in March of 1992 when the office in which the Grievant was working converted to electronic switches, the Grievant was not deemed qualified to perforn maintenance on the new equipment. ‘The Grievant was then declared "surplus' In March 1992 in order to find work for the Grievant to continue to perform, the Company assigned her to work in the Rio Hondo office because that office had not yet converted to the new Cquipent. That office, hovever, vas scheduled for conversion.in late 1992. when the Grievant was declared surplus in March 1992, her surplus disposition date was established as October 3, 1992. That Gate vas later extended to December 26, 1992. In October 1992 the Grievant was assigned to a special work crew knew as the Power Crew which enabled her to continue working. This was regarded 2s a temporary assignment, in part to provide the Grievant additional time to take the ESM test or to transfer to a job other than a Comm ech position. Witn the assignment to this position, the Grievant was moved out of surplus status. In August 1993 the Power Crew work was no longer, deened necessary and therefore that job was no longer available to the Grievant, nor by that time were there any non-BSM full time Conn Tech positions available. As a result, on October 18, 1993, the Grievant vas again declared surplus with a disposition date of December 18, 1993. Article XVII of the 1992 Departmental agreement, which is known as the Force Adjustment Article, provides the method for administering surplus conditions. ‘That article provides that employees have 28 days from the date of being notified of their Surplus status, which in this case was October 18, 1999, to file a@ surplus transfer request under the job vacancy article, which is Article XIII of the Departmental Agreenent. The 26 day deadline in the Grievant’s case was November 15, 1993. The Grievant, however, did not file a transfer request by the deadline. on December 10, 1993 the Grievant submitted a transfer request, but the only job she indicated thet she would accept was a Comm Tech job in the Rio Grande Valley, however, she was not deened qualified for that job since she had not completed the ESM training program. Management nonetheless agreed, in a Separate agreement with the Union, to allow the Grievant to rotake the ESN test one additional time.’ She took the test on December 17, 1993, which is the day before she was scheduled to be separated from employment. The Grievant unfortunately failed to pass the test. As a result, by Virtue of the operation of Article XVII of the Departnental Agreenent, the Grievant was deened to have accepted voluntary formination and she was separated from employment on the scheduled Gisposition date of December 18, 1993. on January 31, 1994 the Union sent a letter to the Company jnitiating the grievance process which led to the present case. The letter stated: phe Union charges the Company with violation of 1992 Settlement Agreenent, Article XLII (Craft Stabilization Agreement) due to the treatment of Suzanne Guajardo..-on or about 12/18/93 on Zpril 4, 1994 the Company responded confirming its denial 3 of the grievance and ‘confirming the wording of the original Grievance which was the allegation that the Company had violated Reticle XbIT, which was the Craft Stabilization Agreement. on April 5, 1994 the Union responded by indicating that it wished to appeal ‘the grievance to the General Level of the grievance procedure. The Union again stated: the Union charges the Company with violation of the 1992 Settlenent Agreement, Article XLII (Craft Stabilization Agreencnt) due to the treatment of Suzanne Guajardo.-." on May 16 the Company sent a letter to the Union confirming a decision given to the Union at a Nay 13 grievance meeting at the General Level and again quoted the grievance as desoribed in the Union’s letter of appeal. On June 1, 1994 the Union responded by Gndicating an intent to arbitrate its grievance and again repeated the grievance as "ghe Union charges the Company with the violation of the 3992 Settlement Agreement, Article XLII (craft Stabilizition Acreenent) due to the treatment of Suzanne Guajardo.-." on June 7, 1994 the Union sent another letter to the Company indicating that it wanted to amend the letter of June | to read: “the Union charges the Company with the violation of the 1902 Settlement Agreement, Article

  • Vous aimerez peut-être aussi