Opinion ID: 2625080
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grant's termination claim was grievable.

Text: Grant argues that the language of the CBA, together with the union's refusal to pursue his grievance, demonstrate that his termination was not grievable. Whether Grant had a grievable claim involves the proper interpretation of a contract provision and is therefore a matter of law. [3] Grant's argument fails because his reading of one CBA provision makes another provision of the CBA a nullity. Grant interprets article 5, subsection 2(A) of the CBA to suggest that if the union declines to pursue an employee's grievance, it is not grievable, and the grievance guidelines of the CBA do not attach. Article V, subsection 2(A) provides: A grievance is defined as any dispute between the Employer and an employee or the Association regarding the interpretation or violation of this Agreement which has not been resolved by prior submission of the problem through the chain of command, and which has been accepted as a grievance by the Executive Board of the Association. Grant contends that the clause which has been accepted as a grievance by the Executive Board of the Association means that unless a dispute is certified by the union it is not a grievance. While the language of this subsection does suggest Grant's result when read in isolation, article 5, subsection 2(O) of the CBA suggests a different result: If the Association declines to pursue a termination grievance of a non-probationary employee and the employee still wishes to grieve the termination, he/she will notify the Chief and the Labor Relations Office, in writing, within three (3) days of receiving notification from the Association that it has declined to pursue the grievance. Upon receipt of the employee's request, the Labor Relations Officer shall select an arbitrator certified by the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall hear and resolve the grievance as provided under subsections 5.2(I) through 5.2(M) above. Grant's reading of the last clause of subsection 2(A) renders all of subsection 2(O) a nullity because in every case that the association declined to pursue an employee's termination grievance, it would not be a grievance permissible under the CBA. If this were the case, the terminated employee would always be excused from subsection 2(O)'s notice and arbitration provisions. Instead, the terminated employee would be free to immediately file a lawsuit regarding the termination. We have held that [t]o the extent possible, all provisions in a contract should be found meaningful. [4] Since subsection 2(O) would be meaningless under Grant's reading, the superior court correctly read the CBA as a whole [5] to require Grant to file a grievance despite the union's refusal to file a grievance on his behalf. Since this issue is a question of law, the superior court was correct in granting APD summary judgment on this issue.