Agency/Contract:  Eastern Washington University, CBA for Units 1 and 2

Contract Article(s): Art. 37 (Discipline)

Arbitrator: Fredric Dichter

Action: Combined Arbs. Re: Arbitrability of Letters of Coaching and Counseling

Outcome: Grievances Denied, 07/23/2010

The issue in this case was whether the union had the right to arbitrate letters of counseling and coaching given to the grievants.

(The parties agreed to consolidate the grievances into one arbitration hearing.)

The union argued the language in the collective bargaining agreement should be viewed in light of what was considered a discipline by the Personnel Appeals Board, the body that heard disciplinary appeals before full scope collective bargaining came into effect.  The union argued this practice meant that because the employees received the letters in written form, they were actually letters of reprimand in disguise, and thus were subject to arbitration.

The employer argued the plain language of the contract showed that the letters at issue were corrective actions, that corrective action was a form of discipline, and the contract made clear that because corrective actions were not as severe as letters of reprimand, they could not be arbitrated.

The arbitrator agreed with the employer, stating that although the collective bargaining agreement clearly indicated that “corrective action” was a form of discipline, it was not the kind of discipline that could be grieved under the contract.  The arbitrator found that a letter of coaching was a form of corrective action.  The arbitrator also determined that a letter of coaching or counseling could be oral or written.  Lastly, the arbitrator found that corrective action is the lowest form of discipline and precedes both oral and written reprimands.

The grievances were denied.