Opinion ID: 1009510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Karen Clark Grievance

Text: On May 26, 2000, the Union filed a grievance challenging Media General’s discipline of employee Karen Clark. It charged that Media General had violated established past practice with respect to disciplinary procedures when it failed to inform either Ms. Clark or a Union representative of the nature of a disciplinary meeting and of Ms. Clark’s right to have a Union representative present during that meeting.3 3 Media General notes that, on January 24, 2000, it issued a memorandum to put the Union on notice that employees would be entitled to union representation in meetings with management only to the extent required by NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 257 (1975). Under Weingarten, an employer may not deny an employee’s request for union representation at an investigatory interview. The Union did not grieve this memorandum, nor did it file any proceeding with the NLRB. WINSTON-SALEM MAILERS v. MEDIA GENERAL 5 In 1999, Ms. Clark was fired by Media General for absenteeism. The Union grieved the discharge, and an arbitrator ordered her reinstated. On May 10, 2000, shortly after Ms. Clark’s return to work, her supervisor, Kevin Garris, called her to his office and gave her a letter of disciplinary warning about her attendance record. It was this disciplinary meeting that the Union grieved on May 26, 2000. Media General responded to the Clark grievance by indicating that it would be willing to arbitrate the substance of its disciplinary action against Ms. Clark, but it refused to arbitrate the dispute over disciplinary procedure, asserting that the rights of employees to representation at such disciplinary proceedings derives from the National Labor Relations Act, not from the Agreement.