At a few recent stewards’ training sessions I heard the same complaint. “I can’t get a straight answer when I sit down with the supervisor.” Or, “they come into the hearing with all the questions already printed out.” Or, “they stop the meeting, go outside and call someone downtown.”

It all boils down to the same problem. No one at the first step of grievance resolution is given the latitude to make a decision. When the steward and member go into the grievance meeting, they have the expectation that they can a fair shake. Except, they find out that the other side is only going through the motions because they do not have the authority to handle the problem. It’s frustrating and maddening.

Let’s understand what has happened. Years ago, we use to speak about the difference between line operations and staff operations. The line operation was where we worked and supervision was tasked with getting things done — moving the flights, getting the buses out and running on schedule, or making sure that cargo was loaded and sent out. When problems arose, the steward and member would speak with the direct supervisor, resolve the issue and move on. Then along came labor relations. Individuals who knew virtually nothing about transportation or production were hired to standardize contractual issues. Whereas in the past, operations people might have been trained to evaluate contractual issues, now the labor relations staff made the decisions. This occurred in the transit business in the 1980s and became common in all industry.

By forcing first line supervision either to abide by a script or just say “no,” employers centralized all decision making into their labor relations component. It made sense on paper but it didn’t necessarily
save money or make operations run more smoothly. In fact, it probably wasted money and time but companies weren’t as worried about those issues then as they are today.

Fast forward to today. Carrying over this system into the  new century has strapped companies that find they can no longer operate in a fast-changing times. Every issue becomes an grievance that can theoretically arbitration. It’s incredibly time-consuming and wasteful. It works against the economic interest of the employer.always be to strive for grievance resolution at the lest level. That means we need to try, if possible, to work with our first line supervision to resolve issues, often before they become paper grievances. Some of our sections and even locals have had success. It means finding people in the company you can work with.

But what happens when you get stalled at step one?

1. You need to address the problem on a number of levels. First, the grievant needs to know what is happening and why. It isn’t her grievance that is causing the problem. It is a process problem. She needs to be reassured that the union will push her grievance until we get a satisfactory resolution.

2. The steward needs to have a meeting with the chief steward or other officers of the local to begin to address the problem and plan a strategy. Perhaps the local president needs to talk to the base manager to sort out the problem or the international representative needs to talk to someone higher in the company. The union needs to express its dissatisfaction with how the process is not working and how it is not in the interest of either party for it to continue this way. If the problem becomes a long-standing one, the local may need to develop a stronger response.

3. At no point, should the steward forego his responsibility in the process. If the grievance is not answered in a timely fashion and the contract does not provide for a penalty, then he needs to move it up the grievance ladder. If you are not timely, the employer will immediately claim that the union has forfeited the right to progress the grievance and will deny it on those grounds.The key is not to let management control the grievance procedure through denial or refusals to reply. Their hope is that denial or silence might make the grievance go away.

As frustrating as these tactics are, they cannot be allowed to divert the union from its primary task of defending members’ rights on the job.