In May of this year, I wrote about a strange case I was working on involving the California State University Employees Union (SEIU Local 2579) and the union representing CSUEU’s own staff (UAW Local 2350). What was curious about the case was not that there was a contractual dispute between the two. This happens fairly regularly. What was weird was that UAW Local 2350 invoked its right to submit the dispute to arbitration and then CSUEU refused to arbitrate it.
The substantive dispute in this case began in January of this year when CSUEU President Catherine Hutchinson sent a letter to a CSUEU staff member informing her that CSUEU was extending her probationary period by six months. The binding collective bargaining agreement (CBA) establishes a one-year probationary period during which new employees can be fired without cause, but it does not permit the employer to extend this period. UAW Local 2350 therefore grieved this unilateral extension of the probationary period and asked that CSUEU issue a correction indicating that the employee in question had become a permanent employee.
Hutchinson denied the grievance and explained that she had not violated the CBA by extending the probationary period. UAW Local 2350 then filed a step-two grievance, which was also denied, followed by a demand to arbitrate. Through counsel, Hutchinson then indicated that “CSUEU does not agree to arbitrate.”
The refusal to arbitrate left UAW Local 2350 no choice but to file a federal lawsuit against CSUEU seeking an order compelling CSUEU to arbitrate. I filed the complaint and motion to compel in that suit in May of this year. Earlier this week, the judge issued an order granting the motion and compelling CSUEU to arbitrate.
Throughout this dispute, CSUEU never articulated a good reason for their refusal to arbitrate. Their counsel’s sole argument before the court was that the initial letter sent by the union steward grieving the probationary extension was not really a grievance because it did not contain the word “grievance.” This argument was advanced even though the CBA does not require any such language and specifically refers to the first step of the grievance process as an “informal step” that can be satisfied by something as minimal as a verbal conversation with a manager about it. The judge in the case rejected this not-a-real-grievance argument immediately.
Of course, parties often advance nonsense positions in court for strategic purposes, including solely for the purpose of delay. But what’s strange about this case is that it remains totally unclear what that strategic purpose could have possibly been. It does not seem strategically wise for CSUEU, which represents 35,000 employees in the California State University system, to spend thousands of dollars of its members’ money on a federal lawsuit it is certain to lose while advancing a legal position about what constitutes a grievance that would be harmful to their membership, and the labor movement generally, if they did somehow win. Buying some time until CSUEU formally grants permanent status to the employee in question also does not really help CSUEU financially or otherwise.
The only thing that really makes sense about all this is if you imagine that Hutchinson thought that UAW Local 2350 would be unwilling to jump through all of the hoops necessary to enforce the parties’ CBA. This is a weird way for a union to behave towards another union and turned out to be wrong.
I am hoping the parties can resolve this issue now rather than spend yet another chunk of labor movement money on an arbitration. We will see.