BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
LOCAL 990, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
(Dolly Fitch - Clarification of the Remedy)
SUPPLEMENTAL ARBITRATION AWARD
On September 3, 1997, the undersigned issued his Award resolving a grievance
involving Local 990, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Union) and
County (hereinafter referred to as the County) over the County's October 14, 1996 discharge
of Dolly Fitch from her position as a Social Worker II with the Department of Human
Services. The Award directed that Fitch be reinstated effective September 8, 1997, with
back pay to April 1, 1997, and included the following provisions:
. . .
1.The grievant shall receive backpay to April 1, 19997; in
addition to the amount of
backpay, she shall be paid two months of wages as compensation for health insurance
. . .
1.There shall be no loss of seniority or credit for service to the
grievant by virtue of the
. . .
1.A copy of this Award will remain on the grievant's record until
December 31, 1998,
and will be treated as a first step in the disciplinary progression for neglect of duty. Any
further discipline must be supported by the traditional notions of just cause, progressive
discipline and proportionality.
. . .
Jurisdiction was retained to resolve any disputes over the remedy. The parties
Arbitrator, and invoked his retained jurisdiction to resolve questions concerning Ms. Fitch's
entitlement to vacation, casual days and flex account on reinstatement. Written arguments
were submitted, the last of which was received on October 9th. The
County asserted that Ms.
Fitch was only entitled to receive one week of vacation, the same as a new employe, and
prorated credit for casual days and flexible spending based upon her reinstatement on
September 8, 1997. The Union argues that benefits must be calculated on the same basis as
backpay, which ran from April 1st.
Now having reviewed the materials and arguments submitted by the parties, and being
fully advised in the premises, the undersigned makes the following Supplemental Award.
The confusion in this case comes from the specification of two different dates in the
Award. The grievant, having been off work for nearly one year, was reinstated to her
effective September 8, 1997. Backpay was ordered to April 1, l1997. The Award did not
clearly state which of these dates should be used for calculating benefit entitlements.
The specification of September 8th as the date of reinstatement was
intended to allow
a short period of time between the issuance of the Award and the reinstatement, to minimize
the disruption caused by her return to the work force. April 1st was set as
the backpay date,
and it was intended that the grievant be treated as having returned to payroll on that date. It
necessarily follows that the other economic benefits of employment would be calculated as
of that date as well, except as otherwise specified in the Award.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the record as a whole, I have made the following
Dolly Fitch is to be credited with 75 percent of what she would normally be entitled
to under the contract by her years of service for vacations, casual days and flexible spending
based upon her return to the payroll as of April 1, 1997.
Dated at Racine, Wisconsin this 13th day of November, 1997.
Daniel Nielsen, Arbitrator