two thousand and nine and on december twenty first two thousand and nine the union first filed a grievance on the issue about an alleged promise that was made by mr renfro the city w your position that she was in is not covered by the union agreement specifically if you look at the briefs it says on article one section three there are several positions covered by the collective bargaining agreement office cornetto is not one of them i can spell them out that's cable spicer i can go through them but they're also listed in the pre ok the next thing is under article eight section three which is  have six months probation period to assure them that both the employer and the individual have made the right choice during the six month period said employee will be able to return to his former position provided that he is then physically qualified to return to work there is this alleged promise if i can just touch base on that little bit there's nothing there's no m o you there's no writings about this alleged promise there was no intent by the city to have this promise of taxes collective bargaining agreement in fact i have no evidence to review this alleged promise so therefore this promise is not part of the agreement and we would still say that miss malcom is not her employment position is not not working out for me i want to come back to my union position the city would say hey i'm paid will put you back in that union position and actually and that's just a big hole if that position was no longer there we would have to pay her the same type of salary of that previous unix system that she was there and if you didn't do that collective bargaining agreement and then if she had it prevents she had the store manager make a severe events so take up the matter in writing that the immediate supervisor of the department within fifteen days of being aware great that's or the time the union employee concerned became aware or should have become aware ok so if they're saying that she had just hypothetically and she was not allowed to come back into this position within six months she had six months and fifteen days to raise a grievance which my calculations are correct and private so my memory's a little bit i would say that would be from january through july that would be about the time frame that she would graze and  be fifteen days from that six month window if she wasn't getting this alleged salary not december twenty first that an additional five months on top of it so and then the other issue i would like to present is under article one section three which i talked about having it the list of employees are covered by the agreement i would say is actually a type of zipper clause because it says so simply and that for the purpose of clarification of any cards that make here after being question of interpretation its statement covering meant to correct intent of such clauses in question shall be covered by both parties and attached here to me part of the agreement there's that pursuant to article one section three i would say that would have to be attached with some type of ammo you you know it's clear it's a contract it's negotiated by both sides i don't have an office for greater position in this in this collective bargaining agreement therefore i don't think she should be covered by the like you know collective bargaining agreement and one of the other points i wanted to make is that the union uses only a public relations act section eight which i do believe covers  and that's what the city would see in a week she was not considering him her position was not within the party agreement and thus we don't think we should be would have you look one ninety three and we don't believe this is a difficult case we would indicate that the circuit court's order is chris magic and the rationale reasoning that it and this is the provision which indication that the employer can take a army unit position individual and place them on bargaining unit position for six months and question how so what if in fact the city didn't know the person could be union grade and the answer is clearly yes effect the city failed to abide by the desire of that individual indicates that after that six months if the employer still wants to be employing back into a position if it's not available they still have to pay the union break we would indicate that in fact was he promised that fact this was going to happen he just kept on hold on you don't have to file a grievance this is going to occur and if in fact that can't be proven at our true shame if in fact not cre doesn't believe we've moved well in fact that's the type of issue that happens all the time with respect to for instance the timeliness of grievances if the union fails to file a grievance in time and within three days or union says we were there we had an agreement and despite that we said we were wanted for six months with but then the city says cowher you bought it would everything's ok and then changed  moreover even if time limits are clear late binding will result in dismissal of the grievance if the circumstances are such that it would be reasonable to require strict compliance with the cited all that we thought we were pretty thorough in citing the bases for the support that the this is a matter of our side how we believe that this is a fairly straightforward when in fact what this will the union is seeking literally is the laughing oh our section tree that is her diet malcolm to go back to her original position under the hour and exclusive documentation that she was not able to be covered by this agreement she wasn't covered that position was not covered and then the other issue is in regards to timeframe this fifteen day w record that the city corresponded till and use this individual not to raise this grievance until after the six months or beyond the fifteen day window when she became aware she wasn't getting this extra sixty thousand lso say hey we don't need her in this position it's not working out we can send you back you didn't happen here she's still in the position and we don't have anything in regards to this inducement i agree arbitration and the labor employment attorney of the city it is a favor but the key is there has to be a clear agreement on both sides to bring it to arbitration and we don't have that here there's nothing i have nothing that there was an agreement on the city that this position would be covered by the collective bargaining agreement therefore