Just about all of our stewards are being denied information they are requesting from the Agency in support of a grievance, ULP, or disciplinary response. For our agents not familiar with this process, we use this information to insure you are being treated like others in your situation. Our stewards are getting told that they do not provide enough specification for their need of the requested information. This is not the case.
LER, namely Ayesha Reyes, is playing games with this process. On our RFI, we cite the specific case law that allows us to withhold certain information. The bottom line is: when you request information on a disciplinary case, there is no need for in-depth specification. Like and similar cases have always been used to ensure that penalties aren’t all over the charts. This is a past practice and should be treated like basic discovery information.
A good example of their ridiculousness is an EEO case we filed. They had the ENTIRE grievance in their possession where we tell them EXACTLY why we are filling and what we are doing with the information. They came back with, we did not provide enough of a specific need for this information.
How does this effect what we do? It helps us prove that the Agency is incompetent and unable to administer a basic disciplinary or grievance process. This drags on the process until it gets to an arbitrator. There, the arbitrator gets to see the ridiculous people the Agency has representing them and we win our case. What it does at the ground level is deprive an agent of due process and renders the corrective disciplinary procedure we have useless.
Keep up the good work LER, you will probably get a raise!
You must be logged in to post a comment.