The question in this grievance is whether the employee was properly issued a letter of demand for which the union claims he was not properly trained. After further review of this matter, the parties agreed that there was no national interpretive issue fairly presented as to the meaning and intent of Article 28 of the National Agreement. The record reflected that the grievant was returned to duty under the rehabilitation program in accordance with ELM 546.141. Whether the grievant was sufficiently trained was a noninterpretive question, and accordingly, the parties further agreed to remand this case to Step 3 for further handling by the parties.
Document Type: Step 4 Agreement
APWU National Grievance Number: H1C4BC30236
Craft: Clerk