Title: QWest Corporation and Communications Workers
of America, Local 7777
THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST ARBITRATION
) OPINION AND ORDER
Michelle Noctor - -
and ) CWA # 7-00-05
QWEST CORPORATION, f/k/a ) FMCS # 223-06392-7
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. )
ERIC B. LINDAUER
July 25, 2001
FOR THE UNION: FOR THE EMPLOYER:
is a contract interpretation case. The Communication Workers of American,
Local 7777 (hereinafter the “Union”) and Qwest Corporation, fka, US West
Communications, Inc., (hereinafter the “Employer” or the “Company”)
are parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter the
“Agreement”) which provides that any disputes over the interpretation of
the terms of the Agreement, not resolved through the grievance procedure, be
submitted to arbitration. The
Union filed this grievance contending that the Company violated the Awards
Program provisions of the Agreement when it denied an award to a sales
consultant. The Company denied the grievance and the issue was submitted to
arbitration. The arbitration hearing in this matter was held on April 26, 2001
in Denver, Colorado. The Union was represented by its counsel, Stanley M. Gosch
and the Company was represented by its counsel, Emily Keimig. At the
arbitration hearing the parties stipulated the matter was properly before the
Arbitrator. During the course of
the hearing, each party had an opportunity to make opening statements,
introduce exhibits, and examine and cross-examine witnesses on all matters
relevant to the issue in dispute. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
parties waived oral argument and agreed to submit post-hearing briefs. Upon
receipt of the post-hearing briefs, the hearing record was closed and the
Arbitrator took the matter under advisement.
OF THE ISSUE
the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the issue to be
resolved in this arbitration is as follows:
the Company violate Article 24 of the Labor Agreement when it denied an award
to Michelle Noctor on or about February 19, 1999? If so, what is the
the opinion of the Arbitrator, the following provisions of the parties'
Agreement are relevant to determining the issue in dispute:
16 - GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCESS
decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties, and the
Company and the Union agree to abide by such decision.
arbitrator shall have no authority to change, add to or subtract from the
terms of this Agreement.
16.19 Each party
shall pay for the expenses of its own witnesses.
The expense of the arbitrator or neutral third party and the general
expenses of arbitration shall be borne equally by the Company and the Union.
24 - AWARD PROGRAMS
The Company and the Union mutually recognize and agree that changes in
the telecommunications industry and the Company’s position in that industry
necessitate all possible efforts to expand and strengthen the Company’s
marketing capabilities. To that end, the Company and the Union agree that individual
and team contributions to the Company’s marketing efforts may be recognized
and rewarded through Award Programs, subject to the following provisions:
The Programs will be used with those employees who, in their regular
job activities, have an opportunity to directly contribute to the Company’s
revenues or to positively and directly affect the perception of the Company in
Prior to the commencement of each Award Program, the Company will discuss
the nature of the Program with the Union either through an established
Labor-Management Forum or with a CWA Bargaining Agent.
All such Programs will be fairly and equitably designed, implemented
current process of Union involvement will be continued for the life of the
The Company will offer the Union the opportunity to review pertinent
data and openly discuss questions or concerns.
The company will consider and respond, as appropriate, to matters
raised by the Union.
the commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into the following
stipulations of fact:
That the disciplinary action taken against Ms. Noctor is not an issue
in this arbitration.
That the Company was notified through the EEO and Security Department
of the email that was sent by Ms. Noctor on February 1, 1999.
That the date of discipline was February 17, 1999, not February 16,
1999, and that the date planned for the actual award to Ms. Noctor was
February 17, 1999.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
formerly US West, provides telecommunication services to commercial and
residential customers located in fourteen western states. The Company employs
sales consultants who are responsible for selling the Company’s services and
products. These employees are represented by the Communication Workers of
America and their rights, benefits and responsibilities are set forth in the
parties’ Labor Agreement. The Company hired Ms. Noctor as a Sales Consultant
in June 1998. As a Sales Consultant, Ms. Noctor was assigned the
responsibility of selling products and services to residential customers.
The Awards Program
24 of the Labor Agreement governs the Company’s Awards Program. The Awards
Program has been implemented by the Company to provide incentives for Sales
Consultants to sell the Company’s products and services. In addition to a
base monthly salary and commissions earned on sales, Sales Consultants are
encouraged to participate in Awards Programs offered by the Company as an
incentive for employees to increase sales. Awards are given to those employees
who meet or exceed certain sales quotas which are established by the Company
at different time periods throughout the year. The Awards Programs, by virtue
of Article 24.1(d) of the Agreement, are established with the joint
cooperation and approval of the Union. Article 24.1(c) of the Awards Program
provision provides that the Company must fairly and equitably administer the
program. Although not set forth in the Agreement, it has been the longstanding
policy of the Company that employees must meet certain eligibility
requirements in order to qualify to receive the sales awards. Specifically,
employees must have a satisfactory record of performance, and be in compliance
with the Code of Conduct and attendance requirements at the time the award is
delivered to the employee.
The 4th Quarter Car Award
the fourth quarter of 1998 the Company posted and distributed a flyer
advertising a contest to win a new Chevy Blazer.
This was part of the Company’s “4th Quarter Car”
promotion. The flyer read as follows:
4th Quarter Cars
1999 Chevy Blazer
125% of NSR
and 150% of WRAP
For every 3 net US WEST Advanced PCS receive 1 entry
For every 5 net Call Waiting receive 1 entry
For every 5 net Additional Lines receive 1 entry
For every 3 net US WEST.net receive 1 entry
For every 5 net Voice Messaging receive 1 entry
and WRAP are thresholds that must be obtained prior to receiving entries. Both
thresholds must be met each of the months, then you will receive the above
products only. There are no entries given for NSR or WRAP. If you make NSR and
don’t make WRAP, you do not qualify for entries that month.
Noctor testified that NSR denotes the monthly revenue quota and WRAP denotes
monthly product quota, for Sales Consultants. Therefore, in order to receive
contest entries, the Sales Consultants were required to generate 125% of their
NSR and 150% of their WRAP. Each time these sales thresholds were met, the
Company automatically entered the Sales Consultant in the contest for each
additional sale as specified in the contest flyer.
January 15, 1999, the Company’s Phoenix office, which administers the Awards
Program, informed Petra McKnight, the Company’s Revenue Supply Specialist
for the Consumer Markets Division in Denver, that Ms. Noctor’s name had been
chosen as the 4th Quarter Car contest winner. On January 18, 1999,
McKnight informed Cesear DeLeon, Ms. Noctor’s immediate supervisor, that Ms.
Noctor had been chosen as the contest winner. DeLeon confirmed that Ms. Noctor
had a satisfactory performance record and was in compliance with attendance
and Code of Conduct requirements. On February 10, McKnight advised Pam Landry,
Director of the Consumer Markets division, that Ms. Noctor had won the Blazer
and that the Company would give her the car on February 17, 1999.
as a result of your efforts, congratulations on winning a brand new Chevy
Blazer! This is our way of saying
thank you for a job well done.
(Un. Exh. 3)
Company then purchased the Chevy Blazer from a local dealer and began planning
the ceremony for awarding the car to Ms. Noctor.
February 12, 1999, the Security department notified Jim Croft, the Regional
Sales Manager over the Denver Sales Consultants, that Ms. Noctor was under
investigation for forwarding an email, containing inappropriate language, to a
Company manager. Apparently Ms. Noctor had forwarded the email to the manager
accidentally; she intended to send it to another employee. Nevertheless, the
language in the email offended the manager and he complained to the
Company’s internal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) group. Upon receiving
notice of the EEO investigation, Jim Croft immediately notified Pam Landry.
February 17, 1999, Ms. Noctor’s supervisor, Cesear DeLeon, asked her to
accompany him to another building where the Security Department questioned Ms.
Noctor about the offensive email she had sent. Ms. Noctor acknowledged sending
the email and explained how she intended to send it to a fellow employee who
would have appreciated the email but, by mistake, it was sent to another
manager whom she did not know. On the basis of Ms. Noctor’s acknowledgment,
the Company issued her a Written Warning of Dismissal for her conduct. (Emp.
Exh. 1). The parties agree that the discipline issued to Ms. Noctor for this
conduct is not at issue here.
Ms. Noctor signed the warning, Croft informed her that she had been selected
as the contest winner, but as a result of her conduct, she would no longer be
eligible to receive the Blazer. Consequently, the Company awarded the Blazer
to another randomly selected, qualifying employee.
Thereafter, the Union filed this grievance on February 25, 1999, claiming the Company had unfairly implemented and administered the award, in violation of Article 24 of the Agreement. The parties were unable to resolve the grievance through the grievance procedure and the matter was submitted to arbitration.
OF THE PARTIES
is the position of the Company that they did not violate Article 24 of the
Labor Agreement when they denied Ms. Noctor’s award after informing her she
had won the contest, thus, the grievance should be denied. In support of this
contention the Company advances the following arguments:
the Union failed to prove that the Company violated the Agreement by requiring
employees to comply with the Company’s Code of Conduct in order to be
eligible for the awards program. Simply failing to include the condition on a
contest flyer is not enough to support the Union’s contention that they were
not notified of the condition. In fact, the Union approved the condition
requiring compliance with the Code of Conduct as a condition precedent to all
the language in the Agreement is clear and unambiguous. It clearly does not
vest a right in the employees to receive awards. Therefore the Company has
discretion to administer or deny the awards program in a fair and equitable
the Company has a long-standing practice of requiring employees to comply with
the Company’s Code of Conduct to be eligible to receive an award.
Furthermore, it is consistent with Company practice to revoke an award, even
after notification to potential award recipients, when the employee falls out
of compliance with the Code of Conduct.
the awards program is not a contract with the employee, therefore, Ms. Noctor
had no “right” to the award. Thus, revocation of the award does not amount
to breach of contract.
all these reasons the Company contends that they did not violate Article 24 of
the Agreement and the Union’s grievance should be denied.
is the position of the Union that the Company violated Article 24 of the
Agreement when it refused to award the Chevy Blazer to Ms. Noctor after they
had notified her that she had won the contest. In support of this contention,
the Union submits the following arguments.
Ms. Noctor entered an enforceable contract with the Company when she satisfied
all the requirements for entry into the contest. The Company then breached the
contract when they failed to award the Blazer to Ms. Noctor after notifying
her that she had won. The breach of contract violated Article 24 of the
the Company failed to administer the contest fairly and equitably in several
ways. First, the letter advising Ms. Noctor that she had won the Blazer
constituted delivery of the award which the Company unfairly revoked. Second,
they changed the terms of the contest by requiring compliance with the Code of
Conduct when the original flyer, announcing the 4th Quarter Car
contest, failed to indicate that eligibility was conditioned upon satisfactory
performance, and compliance with attendance, and Code of Conduct standards.
Third, even if these conditions are justified, Ms. Noctor maintained
satisfactory status under the Code of Conduct until the close of the contest
because the alleged violation happened after the contest was closed and after
the Company had selected Ms. Noctor as the winner. Fourth, the Company
unfairly disqualified Ms. Noctor after they had already notified her of
Finally, the Company’s past practice under “The President’s Club” is not applicable to the 4th Quarter Car contest. The President’s Award requires compliance with the Code of Conduct, the quarterly award to Ms. Noctor did not.
all these reasons the Union requests the grievance be sustained and that Ms.
Noctor be awarded a new Chevy Blazer or the equivalent in cash.
24.1(c) of the Awards Program provision in the Agreement provides that, “All
such Programs will be fairly and equitably designed, implemented and
administered.” The crux of this case is whether the Company’s removal of
the award of the Chevy Blazer to Ms. Noctor, after notification, but before
delivery, amounted to unfair or inequitable administration of the Awards
reviewing the controlling language of the Agreement, the evidence submitted at
the hearing, and having considered the arguments of the parties as set forth
in the post-hearing briefs, the Arbitrator concludes that the Company did not
violate the Agreement in denying Ms. Noctor the Chevy Blazer. The Arbitrator
has reached this decision based on an analysis of each of the four principle
contentions advanced by the Union. First, whether there was an enforceable
contract between the Company and Ms. Noctor. Second, whether the Company
properly applied the eligibility requirements for the Quarterly Car contest.
Third, whether the letter of notification that Ms. Noctor received announcing
that she had won the Quarterly Car contest constituted receipt of the award.
Finally, whether the Company administered the Awards Program, under the
circumstance in Ms. Noctor’s case, in a fair and equitable manner as
required by the Labor Agreement.
THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS
During the fourth quarter of 1998, the Company distributed a flyer advertising the 4th Quarter Car contest. The flyer provided the requirements for receiving entries into the contest. (Un. Exh. 1)(Emp. Exh. 2). The Union claims this was an offer to enter a contract, which Ms. Noctor accepted. Thus, a binding contract was formed and the Company subsequently breached that contract when they revoked the award after notifying Ms. Noctor that she had won the 4th Quarter Car contest. The Union contends Ms. Noctor entered an enforceable contract with the Company when she satisfied all the requirements for entry into the 4th Quarter Car contest. Ms. Noctor accepted the offer by satisfying all the requirements when she fulfilled the sales quotas as specified on the flyer. Then the Company automatically entered her name in the 4th Quarter Car Program and, subsequently, notified her that she had won the new Blazer. Later the same day, the Company revoked the award because of a disciplinary incident, and refused to deliver the award. The Union asserts this constituted breach of contract, resulting in unfair and inequitable administration of the 4th Quarter Car Program by the Company.
Company argues arbitration is not the proper forum to address a breach of
contract claim. The Agreement does not encompass an individual breach of
contract claim such as the one presented by the Union. The Company asserts the
court, not the Arbitrator, has exclusive jurisdiction over individual breach
of contract claims and that the Arbitrator is restricted to resolving issues
arising out of the scope of the Labor Agreement.
response, the Union contends the Arbitrator can decide the breach of contract
issue because it is pertinent to whether or not the Company fairly and
equitably administered the 4th Quarter Car Program. Furthermore,
the Agreement does not limit the Arbitrator’s consideration of external law.
In support of this contention the Union cites Elkouri and Elkouri as
Unless the parties specifically limit the powers of the arbitrator in
deciding various aspects of the issue submitted to him, it is often presumed
that they intended to make him the final judge on any questions which arise in
the disposition of the issue, including not only questions of fact but also
questions of contract interpretation, rules of interpretation and questions,
if any, with respect to substantive law.
(4th ed. 1985)
Union’s contention is misapplied in this case. The key wording in the
authority cited above is that the Arbitrator may decide questions of
substantive law while “... deciding various aspects of the issue submitted
to him ...” The Union’s breach of contract claim is outside the scope of
the issue to be decided in this Arbitration. The Union’s claim is framed in
terms of a breach of contract, which falls within the civil jurisdiction of
the courts, not under the Arbitrator’s authority to determine whether there
has been a violation of the terms of the Labor Agreement. As stipulated by the
parties, the issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether there
was a contractual violation of the Agreement, not whether Ms. Noctor is
entitled to civil damages for the breach of an individual contract with the
Arbitrator may apply substantive law to the issue of whether or not the
Company violated the Agreement. However, the Union’s breach of contract
claim is a separate and distinct issue that is outside the scope of this
arbitration. Therefore, the Arbitrator concludes that this is not the proper
forum for resolution of that issue and shall make no ruling on Ms. Noctor’s
THE COMPANY PROPERLY APPLIED THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE 4TH
QUARTER CAR PROGRAM
is the position of the Union that the flyers distributed to employees
announcing the 4th Quarter Car contest did not include the
condition requiring compliance with the Code of Conduct. (Un. Exh. 1). The
evidence submitted on this issue is confusing. The Code of Conduct condition
is not stated on the flyer produced by the Union, but it is stated on the
flyer produced by the Company. (Un. Exh. 1) (Emp. Exh. 2). The Union implies
this Code of Conduct condition was added to the 4th Quarter Car
contest flyer after Ms. Noctor’s award had been rescinded. Cindy
Scrivens, the Union’s Area Representative, testified there was no mention in
the second posting of the flyer that the employee “must be satisfactory in
CIP, attendance and Code of Conduct.” Although
there is a definite discrepancy between Union 1, which does not include the
requirement and Employer 2, which does; this discrepancy is easily resolved.
Company notified the Union of all eligibility requirements for all Awards
Programs in a January 5, 1998 Memo. The Union approved these rules prior to
the Company’s implementation of the 4th Quarter Car contest. The
fact that some of the flyers for the 4th Quarter Car contest may
not have included all conditions and requirements is not determinative of the
issue of notice. The Union had knowledge of all eligibility requirements for
the contest before it was implemented. The presence or absence of the
qualifying language is not controlling for the following reason.
Union clearly was on notice that before an award is to be actually delivered,
the employee must have established a satisfactory performance record of
employment and meet the Company’s Code of Conduct and attendance standards.
This condition precedent to an employee’s receipt of an award, was clearly
established in a notice that was sent to the Union announcing the
January-April 1999 awards programs, which included the “Quarterly Car”
award, along with other promotions. Included in the announcement was the
Before an award is given, it is verified that the employee has
satisfactory performance, meets Code of Conduct and attendance standards.
was a condition agreed to by the Union as a requirement for eligibility of an
employee to receive Company awards, including the Quarterly Car award.
same information is also discussed in the training program for new employees.
Although Ms. Noctor does not recall the eligibility issue being discussed, she
does recall a discussion regarding the Awards Program during her training.
Jean Troxel, Product manager, testified that she conducted the training for
the Grievant. She further testified that in the training she would have
discussed the programs and prizes which included notice to the employees that
they had to be satisfactory employees at the time of the award. This meant
compliance with the Code of Conduct and attendance as well as maintaining a
satisfactory job performance rating. As an example, Troxel cited an employee
who was denied a $7,000 cash award because of noncompliance with the
a matter of Arbitral principle, past practice may be used to fill in gaps
where the Agreement is not specific.
has been recognized that established practice may be used, not to set aside
contract language, but to fill in the contact’s gaps. Rights or benefits
that are defined generally or that do not specify the consequences of a
violation may be given specific application by reference to past practice.
How Arbitration Works,
ed 1997), p. 654
is the case here. The Agreement simply requires that the Awards programs “be
fairly and equitably designed, implemented and administered.” The Company
has a well-established practice of applying the conditions for eligibility in
Awards Programs. The evidence produced by the Company indicates that all
Awards Programs require compliance with the performance, attendance policy and
Code of Conduct standards. Several of the Company’s other promotions imposed
the exact same condition including, “Take the Reign” (Emp. Exh. 4),
“Consumer Channels” (Emp. Exh. 5), “Go Underground Campaign” (Emp. Exh.
6), “The Incredible Integration Creation” (Emp. Exh. 7), “Momentum To
The Millennium” (Un. Exh. 4), “Rules of the Road” (Un. Exh. 5), and
“Ski The Sales Slope to Vail 99" (Un. Exh. 6). Moreover, other
potential award recipients have had their prizes revoked for falling out of
compliance with these conditions after having been notified that they had won
the basis of this record, the Arbitrator concludes that Ms. Noctor, and Sales
Consultants in general, were on clear notice that in order to receive an award
they had to be in compliance with the Company’s condition of satisfactory
performance, attendance and Code of Conduct requirements.
The evidence further established that the Company, as a matter of
consistent past practice, has required that in order to qualify for an award
employees must be in compliance at the time the award is delivered.
There is no dispute in this case that Ms. Noctor, on February 17, 1999,
was not in compliance with this condition by virtue of the Written Warning of
Dismissal that she had received on February 17, 1999, for violation of the
Company’s sexual harassment policy.
Accordingly, the Company, in denying Ms. Noctor’s award, properly applied the eligibility requirements in their administration of the Awards Programs.
THE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION DID NOT CONSTITUTE RECEIPT OF THE AWARD
Company notified Ms. Noctor that she had won the contest on the day she was to
receive the Award. They sent a letter congratulating her on winning the
contest and announcing that she had won a “brand new Chevy Blazer.” (Un.
Exh. 3). Within hours of receiving the letter, Ms. Noctor was further notified
that she had violated the Code of Conduct and was, therefore, disqualified
from the 4th Quarter Car contest. Consequently, in accordance with
past practice which establishes that an award may be revoked at any time up to
the time of actual delivery, the Company denied her the award.
Union contends that Ms. Noctor “received” the Award upon notification that
she won the 4th Quarter Car Award, and thus, the Company was
estopped from revoking the award. However, the Company asserts it is
consistent with past practice to revoke an award anytime before actual receipt
of the award. To establish the pattern of past practice, the Company points to
the President’s Club. The Union claims that the Company’s practice under
the President’s Club does not permit the same practices under the 4th
Quarter Car contest. They argue that the rules concerning the President’s
Club explicitly state that employees must maintain satisfactory Code of
Conduct, whereas those terms do not exist for the 4th Quarter Car
argument must fail. The facts simply do not support this contention. As stated
above, the Union agreed the condition regarding the Code of Conduct applied to
all award programs. This fact is evidenced in the memo dated January 5,
1998. (Emp. Exh. 3).
all promotions and contests fall under the Awards Program, whether the prize
is a dollar, a new car, or President’s Club privileges. The Company has
uniformly applied the policy that awards may be revoked up to the time the
award is given. Thus, this policy applies to the 4th Quarter Car
Union also argues that the Company’s past practice fails to establish a
“practice of withdrawing prizes, as opposed to invitations to
events.” (Union Post-hearing Brief p.19). They allege the practices are not
established clearly enough or “readily ascertainable over a reasonable
period of time as a fixed, and established practice accepted by both
parties.” (Union Post-hearing Brief p. 19-20). Once again, this argument
lacks factual support. Company witnesses, Troxel, McKnight, Rogers, Croft, and
Graves all testified that President’s Club award recipients have had their
awards rescinded, as a result of noncompliance with the Code of Conduct, after
notification that they received the award. When an employee is awarded airline
tickets to attend the President’s Club retreat, the Company gives the
employee the tickets prior to the trip. In cases where the employee has
violated the Code of Conduct after being notified but before the actual trip,
the Company has recovered the tickets from the employee.
the opinion of the Arbitrator, the Company has a clear and established
practice in the administration of their awards programs; the potential
recipient must retain a satisfactory status under the Code of Conduct until
the actual prize changes hands, and if the recipient falls out of compliance
any time before actual delivery, the Company may revoke the prize. Therefore,
the Arbitrator concludes that notification of winning the contest did not
constitute receipt of the award such that the Company no longer retained the
right to revoke the award upon notification of an employee’s noncompliance
with contest rules.
IV. THE COMPANY ADMINISTERED THE 4th QUARTER CAR CONTEST
IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER
Company implemented, administered, and conducted the 4th Quarter
Car contest in a manner consistent with patterns of past practice. As
discussed above and established by the evidence, the Company uniformly
requires compliance with the Code of Conduct, up to the time of the actual
award, in order for employees to be eligible to receive the award. The Company
applied this policy in the 1998 4th Quarter Car contest. On
February 17, 1999, Ms. Noctor received a Written Warning, in violation of the
Code of Conduct. In accordance with the policy, the Company denied her award.
to the Union’s argument, Ms. Noctor did not have a contractual right to
receive the award. The award was a gift and an incentive from the Company. As
such, the Company holds a wide range of discretion in administering these
awards. The Company can, and has, imposed reasonable eligibility requirements
for all awards whether they be cash prizes, the President’s Club or a new
car. Also, pursuant to the Agreement, the Union approved the eligibility
requirements before they were implemented. Therefore, the Company conducted,
implemented and administered the 4th Quarter Car contest in a fair
and equitable manner as required by the Agreement.
is the conclusion of the Arbitrator that the Company implemented and
administered the 4th Quarter Car Program in a fair and equitable
manner. The Arbitrator has reached this conclusion based on an analysis of
each of the four primary contentions advanced by the Union. First, the
Union’s contention that there was an enforceable contract between the
Company and Ms. Noctor is an issue not embraced by the Labor Agreement and is,
therefore, not decided in this proceeding. Second, the Company properly
applied the eligibility requirements for the 4th Quarter Car
contest when the Union approved the requirements prior to the Company’s
implementation of the Program. Third, the letter of notification that Ms.
Noctor received, announcing that she had won the 4th Quarter Car
contest, did not constitute receipt of the award when the Company had
established a clear policy that an award may be revoked up to the time the
award is actually delivered to the recipient. Finally, the Company
administered the 4th Quarter Car contest fairly and equitably, in
Ms. Noctor’s case, when it reasonably exercised its discretion in imposing
eligibility requirements for the Program and revoking the award when the Ms.
Noctor did not comply with those requirements. The Awards Program is a benefit
for the employees; an incentive not a contractual right. Therefore,
the Arbitrator concludes that the Company did not violate the Agreement when
it revoked Ms. Noctor’s award, after notifying her that she had won the 4th
Quarter Car Program, for noncompliance with the Code of Conduct. Accordingly
the Union’s grievance shall be denied.
THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST ARBITRATION
) OPINION AND ORDER
Michelle Noctor - -
and ) CWA # 7-00-05
QWEST CORPORATION, f/k/a ) FMCS # 223-06392-7
US WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. )
Eric B. Lindauer,
Post Office Box 8173 Portland, OR 97207Phone: 877 399-8028