BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES
LOCAL UNION NO. 781, AFL-CIO/MBTC
(Painters Local 781 Grievance)
Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C., Attorneys at Law,
by Ms. Jill Hartley, on behalf of Painters and Allied Trades Union
Local No. 781, AFL-CIO/MBTC.
Mr. Timothy R. Schoewe, Deputy Corporation Counsel, on
behalf of Milwaukee County.
The Milwaukee Building and Trades Council, AFL-CIO, of which Painters and
Local Union No. 781, AFL-CIO/MBTC, hereinafter the Union, is a member, requested that
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission appoint a staff arbitrator to hear and decide
dispute between the Union and Milwaukee County, hereinafter the County, in accordance
grievance and arbitration procedures contained in the parties' labor agreement. 1/ The
subsequently concurred in the request and the undersigned, David E. Shaw, of the
staff, was designated to arbitrate in the dispute. A hearing was held before the undersigned
February 3, 2000, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. There was no stenographic transcript made of
hearing and the parties submitted post-hearing briefs in the matter by March 16, 2000.
the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the undersigned makes and issues the
1/ The parties mutually agreed to waive the
time limits for issuance of an award.
The parties stipulated there are no procedural issues, but were unable to agree on a
of the substantive issues and agreed the Arbitrator will frame the issues.
The Union would state the issues as follows:
Did the County violate the parties' collective bargaining
agreement when it assigned parking lot
striping work in the County to members of AFSCME Local 882 instead of to members
Local 781? If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
The County would state the issues as being:
Did Milwaukee County violate Sec. 2.01(4) of the labor
agreement on May 25, 1999, when it
assigned non-#781 employes to paint stripes on a parking lot in Hoyt Park? If so, what is
The Arbitrator frames the issue as follows:
Did the County violate the parties' collective bargaining
agreement on May 25, 1999 when it
assigned non-bargaining unit employes parking lot striping work in Hoyt Park? If so, what
The following provisions of the parties' Agreement are referenced:
1.01 RECOGNITION. The
County of Milwaukee agrees to recognize, and herewith does
recognize, Milwaukee Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, as the
bargaining agent on behalf of the employes of Milwaukee County in accordance with the
of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission Case LV, No. 16954, ME-960,
. . .
1.04 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The County
of Milwaukee retains and reserves the sole
right to manage its affairs in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, resolutions and
executive orders. Included in this responsibility, but not limited thereto, is the right to
structure and location of departments and
divisions; the kinds and number of services to be
performed; the right to determine the number of positions and the classifications thereof to
such service; the right to direct the work force; the right to establish qualifications for hire,
to test and
to hire, promote and retain employes; the right to transfer and assign employes, subject to
practices and the terms of this Agreement; the right, subject to civil service procedures and
of this Agreement related thereto, to suspend, discharge, demote or take other disciplinary
the right to release employes from duties because of lack of work or lack of funds; the right
maintain efficiency of operations by determining the method, the means and the personnel by
such operations are conducted and to take whatever actions are reasonable and necessary to
out the duties of the various departments and divisions.
In addition to the foregoing, the County
reserves the right to make reasonable rules and
regulations relating to personnel policy procedures and practices and matters relating to
conditions, giving due regard to the obligations imposed by this Agreement. However, the
reserves total discretion with respect to the function or mission of the various departments
divisions, the budget, organization, or the technology of performing the work. These rights
be abridged or modified except as specifically provided for by the terms of this Agreement,
they be exercised for the purpose of frustrating or modifying the terms of this Agreement.
rights shall not be used for the purpose of discriminating against any employe or for the
discrediting or weakening the Council.
The County is genuinely interested in
maintaining maximum employment for all employes
covered by this Agreement consistent with the needs of the County.
In planning to contract or subcontract work, the County shall
give due consideration to the
interest of County employes by making every effort to insure that employes with seniority
be laid off or demoted as a result of work being performed by an outside contractor.
In the event a position is to be abolished
a result of contracting or subcontracting, the
County will hold advance discussions with the Council prior to letting the contract. The
representatives will be advised of the nature, scope of work to be performed, and the reasons
the County is contemplating contracting out work.
. . .
2.01 WAGES Rates paid to skilled tradesmen
in all classifications shall be as follows:
. . .
(4) PAINTER'S WAGE RATE Effective the next
pay period following the execution
date of this Agreement, a Painter shall be paid ($.75) seventy-five cents per hour more than
hourly wage rate when Spraying or Sandblasting. Effective the next pay period following the
execution date of this agreement, a Painter shall be paid ($.35) thirty-five cents per hour
the hourly wage rate, for all hours when so assigned, to perform drywall, taping, and
. . .
Milwaukee County owns and maintains a park system consisting of approximately
located throughout the County. The parks are divided into various regions, with a regional
in charge of those regions. There is a Landscape Services Division responsible for all
asphalt maintenance in the county park system. There is a Parks Maintenance Division,
a manager, and all of the painters employed in the parks are in that division. Steven Murphy
Landscape Services manager and Allen Krumsee is the manager of the Parks Maintenance
The Union, Local 781, represents all of the professional painters employed by Milwaukee
throughout its various departments and divisions, including the Parks Department. Local
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, represents employes in non-trades positions employed in various
and divisions throughout the County, including Parks Department, Landscape Services
the Highway Department.
The grievants, Timothy Hanson and Diane Hanson, are journeymen painters in the
Maintenance Department and are represented by Local 781. On May 25, 1999, the grievants
observed employes in the Landscape Services who are members of the bargaining unit
by AFSCME,Local 882, painting stripes in the Hoyt Park parking lot using an airless,
paint sprayer for the work. Timothy Hanson testified that prior to May 25, 1999, he
had never seen
anyone except Carl Clements, a painter employed in the County's Highway Department, do
in park parking lots. He had observed Clements striping the Brown Deer parking lot in
Hanson also testified that the airless sprayer used by employes of Landscape Services was of
he uses on an everyday basis. Hanson also testified that he has never painted stripes on
or athletic fields.
Carl Clements testified that he has been employed as a painter in the County's
Department since 1989, and that his duties include road striping and painting buildings. He
that he has striped parking lots in the parks beginning back as far as approximately 1990
airless sprayer, and that he has done so every year. Clements testified that when doing the
in the Parks Department he uses the Highway Department equipment and paint and uses
sprayer or a sprayer truck. A highway maintenance worker assists Clements, but does not
operate the equipment. Clements also testified that he has observed Landscape Services
represented by Local 882 striping on more than one occasion in the past year and that he has
complaints to the Union's representative about that.
Debra Klinter, a member of the bargaining unit represented by Local 882, was a
employe in Landscape Services in 1993 and 1994, and thereafter became a permanent
employe in the
Highway Department. Klinter testified that she never did any painting while employed in
Services and never saw other employes of that division doing striping work in the parks.
assisted Clements in 1996 painting a crosswalk in Brown Deer Park. Klinter also testified
has never observed anyone doing striping in the parks.
Thomas Rondeau has been with the County 24 years. He has been employed in the
Department since 1988 and was in Parks before that as a laborer. Rondeau is also a member
bargaining unit represented by Local 882. Rondeau testified he never saw anyone striping
lots in the parks while he was in the Parks Department, but that he has at times assisted
striping parking lots in the parks since being in the Highway Department. Rondeau also
he has never observed anyone other than Clements do striping in park parking lots and that
no idea who else performs such work for the County.
Landscape Services Manager for the County, Murphy, testified he has been with the
22 years and that Landscape Services has been responsible for striping and patching in park
lots and that he has been responsible for assigning such work, beginning in 1982 as a
testified that most of the time the work has been contracted out to "time and material"
or assigned to Local 882 members who are Parks employes assigned to a particular park,
an example, striping the "S" curve in the Grant Park roadway. In that latter regard, Murphy
that in 1992 or 1993 the manager for the North Region purchased such paint spraying
He further testified that Landscape Services employes started doing striping work in 1999
division obtained its first airless sprayer.
Allen Krumsee, who has been the Parks Maintenance Manager for approximately
testified that a request will come in from a region for painting work in the form of a work
that he has never received a work order to do any kind of striping in parking
lots or otherwise. Parks Maintenance does not have striping equipment
per se, and does not have
walk behind sprayers and most of the division's sprayers are used for painting swimming
of the painters employed in the Parks Department are employed in the Parks Maintenance
James Goulee testified that he has been a Regional Manager in the Parks for
nine years, and has been in the Department for approximately 27 years. He testified that as
lot painting, most of it has been done by Local 882 members at least since 1987, although he
observed Clements doing striping or painting of parking spaces in the park system, including
the Lincoln Memorial Parkway with the sprayer truck. Goulee testified that he submits work
for striping to the Landscape Services, or that it is contracted out or given to the Highway
Department. He further testified that he has seen Local 882 employes stripe parking lots and
center striping on the Menomonie and Grant Parkways with "aerosol cans" that fit on a
carrier and that he has not seen other park employes do striping. He has also observed
contractors doing striping one or two times over the years.
The parties were unable to resolve the grievance regarding the May 25 striping of the
lot at Hoyt Park and proceeded to arbitration of the dispute before the undersigned.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Union asserts that the County's assignment of parking lot striping to
AFSCME members instead of the Painters in Local 781 violates the parties' entire
Although the parties' Agreement does not contain an explicit work jurisdiction clause, the
work constitutes "spraying" which is clearly designated as Painters' work in
Section 2.01(4) of the
Agreement. The Union cites arbitral authority for the view that unilateral transfers of work
by the labor agreement violate the entire labor agreement. The testimony in this case
the striping work in issue has normally been performed by members of this Union.
consistently find a prohibition against transferring work that bargaining unit employes have
The wage, recognition and seniority clauses of the Agreement prohibit the transfer of
work out of the bargaining unit. Arbitrators consistently look to those clauses in the
the absence of an explicit work preservation clause does not permit the removal of bargaining
work. An implied prohibition in removing unit work is a substantive, enforceable provision
of a labor
agreement. Skelly Oil Co., 62 LA 69 (Schedler, 1974). Citing a number of additional
Union asserts that arbitrators find
restrictions on removing work by the very act of entering into a collective bargaining
reasoning that unless work is protected, all bargaining unit work could be removed. In the
of explicit language giving management the right to remove work, the labor agreement itself
employer from removing unit work.
The parties' Agreement contains a recognition clause that requires the County to
Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council on behalf of the bargaining unit
also contains various clauses referencing seniority as well as a seniority clause itself. The
effect of all of these clauses serves to prevent the County from transferring bargaining unit
which is within the Union's jurisdiction.
Further, the County may not justify transferring striping work to Local 882 on the
its management rights. The right to "direct the work force" or "transfer and assign
not render meaningless the clauses that evidence a clear intent to restrict the performance of
bargaining unit work to unit employes. Also, the management rights clause in the
the applications of the County's rights to "existing practices and the terms of this
the parties' past practice, in combination with the wage, recognition and seniority clauses in
Agreement, explicitly prohibits the County's actions.
The County also may not defend its assignment of the striping work in this case on
that it was de minimis. The County's action in
transferring the parking lot striping in Hoyt Park took
away no less than 40 hours of bargaining unit work. Also, there are numerous parks in the
system and the testimony of Clements established that Hoyt Park is not the only park at
County has assigned lot striping work to Local 882 members. While the County's action in
has reduced the Union's work jurisdiction in the one area of lot striping, if it is permitted to
logically there would be no reason why it could not destroy the entire bargaining unit in the
fashion. Therefore, the County must be prohibited from eliminating any
bargaining unit work,
regardless of its amount or character. The fact that no bargaining unit employes were laid
off as a
result of the improper work transfer is not a relevant consideration. Nor is it relevant that
removed was assigned to employes in another union. Sangamo Electric Co., 27 LA 631,
The Union also asserts that the clear language of the Agreement establishes that the
issue is within the work jurisdiction of this Union. In this instance, the members of Local
observed using the same type of airless sprayer unit used by members of this bargaining unit
on a daily
basis. While members of Local 882 had been observed in the past using Hudson sprayers or
spray equipment to stripe baseball diamonds, football fields or basketball courts, they have
observed using the type of airless sprayer they used at Hoyt Park. It is the use of the airless
equipment to stripe the parking lot that infringed upon the Union's work jurisdiction.
2.01(4), of the parties' Agreement, states that: "a
Painter shall be paid ($.75) seventy-five cents per hour more than the hourly wage rate
or Sandblasting." Thus, there is no doubt that the parking lot striping performed by the
Service employes with the airless sprayer falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Union
of that clause. Arbitrators have consistently held that such a wage clause constitutes a ban
employer's right to transfer work out of the bargaining unit.
Even where two unions have claimed a practice of performing the work in dispute,
them the jurisdiction over the work, it has been held that where one agreement has a
to perform that sort of work, and which defines the sort of work to be performed by that
classification, and the other agreement does not, the former will prevail. Braniff Airways,
79 LA 383 (Sisk, 1982). Here, the Agreement provides that "spraying" is within the
the painters, and is also work for which a premium is paid. Despite the County's claim that
in issue also falls within Local 882's responsibilities, it did not produce that Union's
bargaining agreement with the County to refute this Union's claim that it possesses the
to the spraying work. Thus, it can be assumed that the Local 882 agreement contains no
language granting that union jurisdiction over the striping work in issue. Further, the
"Parks Human Resources and Procedures Manual" supports this Union's claim. The manual
distinguishes between "skilled trades painters" and "non-skilled trades Parks employees" and
each group's work jurisdiction, "non-skilled trades Parks employees paint Park benches,
metal rails within swimming pools, and do other minor touch-up painting." Local 882
clearly fall within the classification of "non-skilled trades Parks employees", whose only
painting work is that defined in the manual. Also, it cannot reasonably be argued that the
work in issue constitutes "other minor touch-up painting." Here, there is clearly an
practice of Local 781 members performing the work so that a clear line has been drawn so as
include parking lot striping within Local 781's jurisdiction.
The Parks Department has long interpreted the Union's jurisdiction to include
in all public areas. In 1996, Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture Director Susan
issued a letter to the Kosciuszko Advisory Board after members of that Board had painted a
of the walls in the newly-renovated weight room in the Community Center. Because the
was within the public eye, Baldwin concluded that the work should have been completed by
of Local 781. Baldwin noted that "an agreement with the Parks Department painters
painting done by anyone other than the professionals will occur only in non-public areas,
consultation with the painters regarding surface preparation, product to be applied, etc."
Baldwin's letter to its logical conclusion, all painting work within the public view is work
jurisdiction of Local 781.
While the grievants have never personally done parking lot striping work at Hoyt
work is within the jurisdiction of Local 781 and therefore the grievants, as members,
had the right
to grieve the improper striping assignment. All painter members of Local 781 employed by
County are covered by the parties' Agreement, and because that Agreement designates
work to this union, any member of this bargaining unit is entitled to grieve the improper
Next, the Union asserts that the clear and unequivocal past practice establishes that
lots in the County parks is within the work jurisdiction of Local 781. As to the clarity and
consistency of the practice, the testimony of Clements established that he had been striping
park parking lots since 1990 or 1991, and that he has never seen Landscape Services
any striping work on the lots. Clements' testimony is further supported by his calendar
the years 1995, 1996 and 1998, noting the dates on which he striped the various County park
lots throughout the system. While the County attempted to cloud the issue by emphasizing
use of a large striping truck for portions of his work, Clements testified that in addition to
he also regularly uses an airless sprayer of the type used by Landscape Services to stripe the
Park lot. The Union also presented the testimony of Tim Hanson, Debra Klinter and Tom
Hanson, a 12-year employe of the County in the Park Maintenance department, testified that
to the day in question, he had never seen Landscape Services striping parking lots with
equipment. Klinter, a member of Local 882 and a seasonal employe of Landscape Services
summers of 1992 and 1993, never witnessed Landscape Services employes striping parking
Klinter is currently employed in the Highway Department and has assisted Clements in
striping in the
past. Likewise, Rondeau, also a Local 882 member, has assisted Clements in striping
in the past, and testified that he never witnessed anyone other than Clements striping lots in
years he has been with the Parks Department.
The County was unable to substantiate its claim that Local 882 members had
striping work in issue in the past. County witnesses were unclear about the details of the
practice, and therefore failed to establish the necessary clarity and consistency required to
binding past practice. Landscape Services manager Murphy was unable to provide specific
or details of Local 882 members being assigned to stripe County park parking lots and
the first airless spray equipment he purchased was in March of 1999, the same airless spray
used in the case in issue. While Jim Goulee, a current regional manager for Milwaukee
testified that the Central and North regions have had airless sprayers since 1994 and 1995, he
never seen a Local 882 member use an airless sprayer for striping, and could not even
those airless sprayers are currently housed. While he testified that he has seen Local 882
Services employes stripe various surfaces in the park, he only saw them using aerosol spray
has never seen any of them use airless spray equipment to do so. Goulee admitted that he
Clements performing striping work in at least one County park in the past. As to the
repetition of the practice, the testimony of Clements, Hanson, Klinter and Rondeau establish
Local 781 members have been consistently performing the parking lot striping in the County
since the early 1990's, and also establish that Local 781 members previously performed
striping at County Stadium when it was still a part of the Parks Department.
As to whether the practice has been accepted by the parties, Murphy testified he was
the parking lot striping was being assigned to a Local 781 painter, and Goulee also testified
had observed Clements striping parking lots in the past. Neither Murphy nor Goulee did
to change this practice, and there was no evidence presented that Local 882 ever
grieved Local 781's
past performance of the work. Thus, all elements of a binding past practice have been met,
establishing this Union's right to the work in dispute. As relief, the Union asserts that it is
to a cease and desist order prohibiting the County from assigning the parking lot striping out
bargaining unit, and requests that those bargaining unit members who should have performed
striping work at issue be made whole for all wages and benefits lost as a result of the
The County asserts that while the Union seeks to extend this grievance into a huge
jurisdictional dispute, this is a single grievance regarding an event that took place on a single
a single park, and involves approximately eight hours of work with a maximum exposure of
per hour. Further, while grievant Tim Hanson observed a Local 882 member painting
stripes on a
parking lot, this does not explain how that single observation harmed both he and the other
for a total of 40 hours. In fact, no harm occurred, since both grievants were and are fully
and there is no documentation of any harm to them or anyone else. Nor is it explained why,
painter was to paint stripes, it would be the grievants.
The County asserts that in the past the County has sometimes used a Highway
sometimes a non-union "time and material" painting contractor, or sometimes a member of
bargaining unit represented by Local 882 to paint stripes in Parks parking lots. That practice
decades old. The record establishes that no Parks painter has painted parking lots in at least
A regional manager in Parks might place a work order with the Highway Department and
was assigned to the work did the painting. Landscape Services might contract with a
and material painting contractor, or parks managers might assign Local 882 members to
but never has a Park Department painter been so assigned. This is further supported by the
of the Union witnesses. Tim Hanson testified he saw Clements paint lots once in 1996. He
stated that Clements' equipment
was the same as that utilized by Landscape Services' 882 members. Hanson conceded
that he has
never in his 11 years striped fields, courts, ball diamonds or parking lots. Hanson asserted
was no problem with Local 882 members painting such things as pools, tables,
fields, courts, etc., however he viewed spraying as "painter's work." He premised this upon
language of the Agreement that provided premium pay for spraying. However, that
provides for premium pay when it is assigned. In this case, the grievant was not assigned,
was no evidence of the grievant or any other painter not getting the premium when they were
assigned. Nor was there a showing the painters were paid the premium when Local 882
painted in the past.
Clements testified that he sporadically painted in the parks, and that he personally had
observed Local 882 members spraying, but after consulting with his local union
not grieve it. Clements also manufactured a heretofore unknown calendar which the County
describe as a "fugitive document." Clements' testimony and calendar, however, do not
practice of exclusivity of this type of work. The testimony of Union representative
Jorgensen has no
import as he has no knowledge of the facts in the case, except to document that in the past,
Union, despite actual knowledge, did not pursue grievances on similar actions. As to the
of Klinter and Rondeau, Klinter testified that she did no painting when employed in the
never paid attention to who did parking lot striping. Except for one job she did with
Brown Deer in 1996, she never observed anyone striping parking lots. While Rondeau
worked with Clements, he never saw anyone stripe lots, but did observe Local 882
workers using a
Hudson airless sprayer. Conversely, the County's witnesses established both a long-standing
and a lack of foundation for the Union's position.
Murphy's unrebutted testimony was that laborers, seasonal help and park maintenance
workers have done lots and parkways for more than a decade. As early as 1992, Local 882
were using airless sprayers on parking lots, ball fields, basketball and tennis courts, footpaths
parkways. He testified that either Local 882 people were used or the work was contracted
out to a
non-union time and material contractor. Krumsee, the Parks Maintenance Manager, testified
contradiction that airless sprayers had been used by Local 882 people in the parks for seven
years. He also testified that in that time Parks painters had never been assigned to do
Goulee, a regional manager who has 27 years in the Department, underscored that practice.
testified that Local 882 staff had done painting all of his years in the Department, and that
they have employed airless sprayers. In his experience, Local 781 painters, e.g., Clements,
striping jobs on a sporadic basis.
The County concludes that the Agreement is silent as to what work is exclusively
to painters generally and to Parks painters specifically. The testimony of the Union's own
reflects there is no exclusivity as to the assignment of painting. The record
establishes that managers have used Local 882 employes, a single highway painter, or
outside non-union contractors, and the grievant specifically testified to the practice of Local
painting a variety of surfaces. There is no evidence to support the contention of a practice of
assigning striping solely to Local 781 members. The evidence is, in fact, to the contrary.
with the Agreement, managers determine the work to be done, how it should be done, and
should do it. While Local 781 painters paint in the Parks, it is undeniable that Local 781
not the only painters in the Parks. Thus, the Union has failed to prove either a contract
any documentation of harm, even if a violation was shown to have occurred. Thus, the
should be denied.
As the County asserts, this case involves one assignment on one day in one location.
the award in this case may be viewed by one or more of the parties as having wider
issue here is limited to the one instance on May 25, 1999.
The Union cites the parties' Agreement as a whole, the wages, recognition and
provisions in general, and specifically, Section 2.01, (4) Painter's Wage Rate, which
provides a 75
cent per hour premium "when Spraying or Sandblasting." In the latter regard, the Union
provision essentially confines work involving the use of a high pressure, airless paint sprayer
painters represented by Local 781. That argument would be more persuasive if it had been
established that only the painters have used such equipment in the past. However, the
Murphy and Goulee was that such work has also been contracted out in the past or assigned
882 members, albeit the latter have not always used airless sprayers in doing such work.
As to the cases cited by the Union as holding that the agreement as a whole and its
recognition, classification, wage or seniority provisions preclude the assignment of
to non-unit members, most all of those cases involved the total and permanent transfer of
of the unit that had been exclusively performed by bargaining unit members in the past.
not the facts presented in this case. As noted above, the testimony of long-time management
employes established that for over a decade the striping work in the Parks has not been
assigned to Local 781 painters; rather, it has been contracted out (pursuant to the County's
contractual management's right to do so) or assigned to Local 882 members, as well as
a Local 781 member. Even the Union's evidence would indicate that Clements has been the
Local 781 member assigned such work since approximately 1990, and his "calendar" (Union
3) noted his being assigned to do such work only four to eight times in a year in a total of
different parks since 1995 (none in 1997) out of the County's approximately 130 parks. That
the case, it would seem highly doubtful that the Union or its painter members were not
aware of the
County's having non-unit employes or outside contractors perform such work as well.
It is also noted that, unlike the cases cited by the Union, the County has neither
permanently, assigned the work outside of this bargaining unit. Further, there have been no
of painters or decrease in their work hours as a result of the County's actions.
Finally, with regard to the County's "Parks Human Resources Policy and Procedure
(Union Exhibit No. 1), the cited provision describes the painting non-skilled trades employes
states that, "when it is not possible to draw a definite line between work to be done by the
or other employes, the affected Regional Manager or Service Division Head is expected to
call to the Parks Painter Supervisor. . . for guidance." This is perhaps the strongest point
makes in this case; however, once again the County's practice of assigning Local 882
contracting out such work cuts against the Union's position.
For the foregoing reasons, it is concluded that the County did not violate the parties'
Agreement on May 25, 1999 when it assigned non-bargaining unit employes to paint stripes
Hoyt Park parking lot.
Based upon the foregoing, the evidence, and the arguments of the parties, the
makes and issues the following
The grievance is denied.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 5th day of July, 2000.
David E. Shaw, Arbitrator