Union, Not Individual Employee, Decides How To Process Grievances

A recent brief decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court is a short, but critical, reminder about a Union's predominant role in handling grievances. The Union negotiates a collective bargaining agreement with an employer, from a position of strength as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees. When the Employer violates the CBA, the Employer is violating its written promises to the Union, not individual employees. The Union ultimately decides whether it believes the Employer violated the CBA and whether a grievance is worth pursuing.

An individual employee can be aggrieved by (or upset about) the Employer's actions. But it is the Union's decision as to whether a neutral arbitrator should resolve the dispute and, further, to decide the legal strategy, such as what arguments and evidence to present to an arbitrator in support of a grievance.

In the case of Department of Correction v. Mass. Correction Officers Federated Union (August 16, 2013), the Massachusetts correctional agency terminated an employee. The Union grieved the termination as a violation of the applicable CBA. The Union before an arbitrator, who ordered the employee to be reinstated. However, the Employer appealed to Superior Court. The Court agreed with the Employer that the arbitration decision must be overturned.

The aggrieved employee appealed to the Appeals Court. The Union did not. The Appeals Court dismissed the case, finding that the Employee did not have "standing" (or a proper legal basis) to appeal. Only the Union could decide whether to challenge the Superior Court decision. The Appeals Court said that its decision was unaffected by the Employer's decision to name the employee as a defendant in the suit. "Brouillette was not a party to the agreement and had no standing to enforce it or defend his interpretation in court."