Opinion ID: 197392
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was There a Continuing Violation?

Text: To comply with grievant's obligation to file promptly or lose his claim, Sabree v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners Local No. 33, 921 F.2d 396, 402 (1st Cir. 1990), the arbitrator found that the claim is of a continuous nature; arises and is renewed from day to day. For this he cited arbitration decisions where an employer 2. We have found there may be critical distinctions between Misco and claims which may be made in other cases. In Misco, [t]he specific issue was whether, under the contract, the arbitrator could limit the evidence before him to the evidence that had been before the employer at the time of discharge . . . a matter on which the contract was silent. S.D. Warren Co. v. United Paperworkers' Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1069, 846 F.2d 827, 828 (1st Cir. 1988) (setting aside arbitrator's determination under Misco as unsupported by the essence of the agreement.) -9- changed a rate of pay or work diminishing or depriving employees of daily pay.3 The daily failure to pay was the direct act or action. The act or occurrence here was the naming of a person to the editorship. Pay was not the act, but was merely one of its consequences. This is of logical and practical significance. In the ordinary case of loss of pay, or of work, the matter can be remedied in due course, as of the date of a late grievance, if it still continued, without prejudicing the employer. A belated order that a grievant should oust an incumbent of a special office requiring posting and have her position, disturbs settled order. If recognized simply to the extent of giving the grievant the increased salary, it will be paying her for work she is not doing, and doubles the employer's costs. The appointment of an editor is a specific occurrence. Clearly an employer has a right to have an appointment settled at the outset, and require that an employee claiming loss of it complain promptly, and not be 3. Quaker State Refining Corp., 78 LA 1328 (1982) (continuing violation from loss of pay through union's failure to object to erroneous designation of seniority); Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 61 LA 90 (1972) (employer farmed out work to non-union employees); Sears, Roebuck & Co., 39 LA 567 (1962) (reduction in commission and loss of pay raise). The arbitrator did not mention, if only as shop procedure, two similar cases, but where El Mundo prevailed. See In re Judith Borunet, Case No. A-1320 (1989); In re Ramon Viscarrondo and Luis Enrique Marrero, Case No. A-2250 (1983). -10- allowed to wait until such time as serves his/her convenience. The arbitrator's purported logic and treatment of plain language has rejected this right. By misstating the basic nature of the occurrence the arbitrator read the time provisions out of the contract, ignoring its essence. Paperworkers, ante. We affirm the rulings of the district court. -11-