By Kate Acheson
In Central State University, 130 LA 1351 (Bell, 2012), Arbitrator Langdon Bell was precluded from awarding monetary damages against Central State University for a violation of their collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with their security officers because the union did file a written request for a specific remedy. Thus, although a violation with associated monetary damages was properly alleged, the Arbitrator could only direct the University to adhere to the CBA staffing guidelines in the future.
The violation in question arose from an announcement by the Chief of Police in March of 2012, which determined that the Captain, who was not a member of the bargaining unit, would be the designated Officer-In-Charge (“OIC”) whenever he was on duty. The CBA provided that “[a]t least one Sergeant or one officer designated as the Officer-In-Charge (OIC) shall work at all times” and that any officer ranking lower than Sergeant assigned to OIC for more than two hours would receive five percent premium pay. Until March of 2012, the OIC was always a bargaining unit member. The union disputed the Chief’s announcement, alleging the change in OIC designation violated the understanding that a bargaining member acting as OIC “shall work at all times.”
Arbitrator Bell found in favor of the union, determining that, in light of past practice, the University’s assignment of the Captain as OIC violated the CBA’s provision to have a bargaining unit OIC working “at all times.” However, in determining the remedy for this violation, the Arbitrator faced the confusion of a violation by the union in the grievance procedure.
The CBA requires “the specific remedy requested” be included in the written grievance, but the union failed to request a remedy.
Thus, the Arbitrator is left with no choice but to find that the Union’s failure to set forth a specific requested remedy is, itself, a violation of [the CBA]. To conclude otherwise would constitute [a] substitution of [the Arbitrator’s own] discretion for that agreed to by the parties.
Therefore, although the University violated the CBA, the Arbitrator could not award any retroactive monetary damages, such as lost premium pay of officers denied OIC designation. He could only direct the University to adhere to the staffing guidelines by designating at least one bargaining unit OIC to work at all times in the future.
