The issue in this grievance is whether the Albany, NY Attendance Control Program constitutes an invasion of privacy and harassment. Also at issue is whether the local program is inconsistent or in conflict with Articles 8, 10, 19 and 30; and subchapter 510 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual. After further reviewing this matter, we agreed that there was no national interpretive issue fairly presented as to the meaning and intent of Article 10 of the National Agreement. Whether the Local Attendance Control Program is a form of harassment or an invasion of privacy, and whether it is in conflict with Article 10 and ELM procedures can only be determined by evaluating the fact circumstances. The further agreed that per Frank Jacquett's December 1, 1983 letter, Management Instruction EL-510-83-9 "...should not be relied upon as interpretive authority of regulations, but is only intended as guidance for managers and supervisors on how to effectively administer leave regulations on an ongoing basis. As such, any challenges to management actions in this area must be pursued on a case-by-case under the provisions of Article 15." This document contains two Article 10 related issues; a Step 4 Agreement on Page 1.

Document Type:  Step 4 Agreement

APWU National Grievance Number:  H1C1QC24889

Craft:  Maintenance

Tags: leave , Attendance Improvement , Attendance Program , Attendance improvement program , attendance control , attendance control program , attendance management , attendance monitoring

return to Contract Database