Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, Local 35

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1321 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

Wastlington-Baltimore
(C'WA)
Ht:rman
ceedi~g.
suppo-ting '
cclunsel
Re~pondent's
spondt:nt's
Purcuant 3(b)
a1
t0.a
ruling^,^
extent
more
P,merica,
8(b)(1)(4)
K:lly,
promoti~>n
~idministrative
-
Respondtni's certain osrc~~ated
arbi'ration grlevnnce.
de~lslon merits mt)tions.
:nt Admln~strative
Rs!spondent's hylaws hls
t tking administratlvc are
trose decislon Buj,iulo Nrnrprrprr
Curld. '6. Amenron Newspuper Gurld. FL-C/O-('LC' (B~rjfirlirb ('orrn-
r.-Express. Irc). 2 2 0 N L R B afflrm ruling [he Admlnls-
J ldge excluding constitut~on hylaws the purpose
they find limlted purpuse
look nollce c f there~n inzons~stent wlth h ~ s
' credibility flndings
Administrallr : IS estahl~shed policy 10
Admillrtratlve resolut~ons w11h credlhllity
cle; of cv~dence
Srandurd Dry Wull Prrnluclucis. Inc..
(1 350). enfd. 188 F.2d (3d ). W e carefullj
exam~ned the -ecord hasis reversing flndlngs.
Respondet~t
- -
Was.hington
s~ l t ed
entirely
grievaMe,
WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE NEWSPAPER GUILD 1321
Newspaper Guild, Local 35
and John M. Kelly. Case 5-CB-2 180
January 16. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 9, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Irving
M. issued the attached Decision in this pro-
Thereafter. Respondent filed exceptions, a
brief, and motions to reopen the record;
and for the General Counsel filed a response
to exceptions, and oppositions to Re-
motions to reopen.
to the provisions of Section of the
Natior Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to
the consistent herewith.
As fully set forth in the attached Decision.
Respondent represents development and research de-
partment employees of the Communications Work-
ers of AFL-CIO (herein CWA). The com-
plaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
by processing a grievance on behalf of
Pauline Washington concerning the promotion of
John the Charging Party herein, without af-
fording Kelly an opportunity to present to Respon-
dent his position that he was more qualified for the
than Washington.
The Law Judge found that Re-
spondent had violated the Act as alleged. In reaching
this conclusion, the Administrative Law Judge found
I motions l o reopen related lo documents
with an proceeding on the Washington In view of our
on he of this case. we deny Respondent'.;
Respond has excepted ro the ruling of the Law Judge
excluding constirution and from evidence. and
subsequent of notice of certain provisions which
identical to involved i n our earlier in The

Local
A
79 (1975). We the of

trativc Law
in the and for

for which
were offered. and that the fur which he
some of the provisions is not
earlier ruling.
Respondent has excepted to certain made hy the
Law Judge. I t the Board's not over-
rule an Law Judge's respect to
unless the r preponderance of all the relevant convince\ us
that the resolutions are incorrect. 91
N L R B 544 362 Cir. 1951 have
and find no lor his
that regardless of whether or not Kelly's proffered
evidence would have established his right to the pro-
motion had unlawfully failed to investi-
gate Kelly's claims. Moreover, the Administrative
Law Judge concluded that even if , as claimed, Re-
spondent was fully aware of Kelly's qualifications, i t
unlawfully ignored those qualifications and failed to
accord Kelly his "procedural rights" to present his
claim that his qualifications were superior to
Washington's, prior to proceeding with Washington's
grievance. For the reasons set forth below, we do not
agree with the Administrative Law Judge.
The circumstances surrounding Kelly's promotion
over Washington and the subsequent filing of a
grievance by are fully set forth in the
attached Decisiort and are essentially undisputed.
We note that Kelly was promoted from research as-
sistant to research economist based on his alleged
superior qualifications in experience, education, and
work performance. Washington filed a grievance al-
leging, in essence, that the sole distinction between
the position of research assistant and that of research
economist was the title and salary rather than the
work and that since Kelly was already receiving a
higher salary based on his prior experience with
other employers he should not be awarded yet a
higher salary due to that same experience when
Washington was also qualified for the research econ-
omist position and had greater seniority with CWA.
The collective-bargaining agreement between Re-
spondent and CWA requires that promotions be
based primarily on seniority where the qualifications
of competing applicants are "relatively equal." The
Washington grievance, although inelegantly phrased,
alleged in essence that the seniority provision was
intended to control when both applicants were at
least minimally qualified for the position, not just in
situations where the combination of education, expe-
rience. and work performance of each applicant re-
in a decision that the overall qualifications of
each applicant were similar. After two grievance
meetings with officials of CWA. Respondent was not
satisfied with the reasons given for selecting
Kelly and decided to submit Washington's grievance
to arbitration.
During the various stages of the grievance proce-
dure. Kelly and Shop Steward Tony Bramble en-
gaged in occasional discussions of Washington's
although at no time was there an offer on
Kelly's part to provide specific information on his
education and work experience. Kelly, however,
wrote to Respondent's administrative officer, Doro-
thy Struzinski. on two occasions to protest Respon-
dent's processing of the Washington grievance and to
request an independent assessment of the relative
~ e l l ~ ' s
let-
ter.4
~ o r r e c t . ~
Adm~nistralive Struz~nskis
d ~ d letter.
Steelu.orkers OJ FL-C/O. and 11s Lorul 4.i.38
Companv). 190 United Ruhhrr. Cork.
1.inoleum & Plasfrc oJ Americu. Loral 174 (Unimvul. Inc.). 20.5
NLRB 117
conlrary lo pas1 practlce h o s t ~ l ~ t )
employer agalnsl ,whom interpretallon asser~ed.
Ma~reson,~
Island
That
Belanger,
Belanger.
Belanger
Wnshington
on
9 4 6 F.2d 124 %8
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
qualifications of the applicants; once again. however,
Kelly did not set forth his own specific qualifications
which he felt Respondent should consider. Struzinski
construed fir t letter as a request for her in-
terpretation of the seniority provisions of the con-
tract, and responded with a written explanation of
the bargaining history of those provisions which con-
cluded with her opinion that Washington had greater
seniority; she did not respond to Kelly's second
Although Washington subsequently left CWA.
Respondent continued to process her grievance.
In our view. the Administrative Law Judge mis-
construed the nature of Respondent's obligation to-
ward Kelly in processing Washington's grievance.
Respondent's first task was to decide what interpre-
tation of the seniority provision was intended when
that provision was negotiated. Kelly and CWA inter-
preted the clause in the same manner as did the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge-namely, that the clause was
intended to require the selection of the most quali-
fied applicant. Washington and Respondent, on the
other hand, interpreted the clause to give seniority a
more central role-namely, that the clause required
that the most senior qualified applicant be chosen. I t
is undisputed that the proper interpretation of the
seniority provision had never arisen under the con-
tract because there had never been more than one
applicant for a promotion, and it is unnecessary for
us to determine which interpretation is Both
theories were reasonable, and a choice of either theo-
ry would of necessity have placed Respondent on the
side of one applicant for the promotion and against
the other applicant. We are unwilling to hold that,
having determined that Washington's interpretation
of the contract was more in keeping with Respon-
dent's intentions in negotiating the provision. Re-
spondent was obligated to decline to pursue that
grievance because. under another theory.
Washington's grievance might have less merit.
It is true that Respondent could have shown great-
er sensitivity in its communications with Kelly. Re-
spondent could have explained to Kelly that if the
contract were interpreted in the manner urged by
Washington, the information concerning Kelly's
qualifications was irrelevant to the grievance; Re-
spondent instead attempted to slough off the matter
with brief explanations. It was undeniably rude to
fail to respond to Kelly's second letter. And if, as
'The Law Judge discredited c l a m that she
not see Kelly's second
Cf. United America. A (Mi -
ami Copper N L R B 43 (1971): contra:
Workers
(1973). where the union's interpretation of :he contract was
and there was evidence of toward the
the new was heing
Respondent asserts, it did not seek Kelly's demotion
but sought only to insure that Washington would re-
ceive the next available position as research econo-
mist. it would have dispelled Kelly's fears for his job
security had Respondent explained this to Kelly.
However. insensitivity by itself does not rise to a
breach of the duty of fair representation.
In ruling to the contrary, the Administrative Law
Judge relied in part on Belanger v. in
which the Rhode Supreme Court found that a
union was obliged to afford competing employees
the opportunity to present any relevant evidence at
an early stage in the grievance so that the union
could make an independent evaluation of the merits
of the grievance. case did not arise under the
Act and is not binding on the Board. More impor-
tantly. the nature of the dispute in Belanger was en-
tirely different from the instant case. In
there was no question that the contract required that
seniority be determinative only if overall qualifica-
tions were equal-in essence, the contractual inter-
pretation urged by Kelly in the instant case was al-
ready an established interpretation in The
only issue in processing the grievance in
was whether the qualifications of the two bidders
were at least equal, an issue as to which both the
grievant and the successful bidder would have rele-
vant input. In the instant case. the threshold question
was the intent of the contractual seniority provision
at the time i t was negotiated, a question which had
not previously been answered and an issue as to
which neither Kelly nor would have
much insight. Had the proper interpretation of the
provision been previously established as being simi-
lar to that in Belanger-namely, as asserted by Kelly,
that relative qualifications were the primary consid-
eration-then Respondent would, of course. have
been obliged to consider the relative qualifications of
the two applicants. However, Respondent de-
termined that the provision was, as asserted by
Washington, intended to make seniority the determi-
native factor where both applicants were qualified,
and undertook to arbitrate the provision in order to
obtain an authoritative ruling concerning whether its
interpretation was correct. There was no question
that both applicants were at least minimally quali-
fied, and Respondent was not arguing that Kelly was
unqualified-or even that Kelly was less qualified
than Washington.
We therefore find that, while Respondent did not
seek out Kelly's views concerning the proper inter-
pretation of the contract or the comparative qualifi-
cations of Washington and Kelly, it had no reason to
do so the facts of this case. There was no evidence
(1975). cert. denied 424 U.S. (1976).
that, had Kelly attempted to file description of ing,
tlua]ifications AFL-CIO (herein sometimes called CWA), is an employer
\iould have been rejected o r ignored. Such a descrip- engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
t ion, however, would not have been relevant to the (6), and (7) of the Act, based upon the ~ndenied allegation
12
In view of the foregoing7 we conclude that the excess of million dollars at its national office in the
(3eneral Counsel has failed by a preponder- I)lstrict Columbia from its affiliated 10~21 unions
s nce Sec- throughout the United States.
tion 8(b)(l)(A) Act.=
rniss 11
IO(c)
Itelations
2(5)
Ill . THI. UNFAIR
' against Washing-
t')n rel~ed qual~ficat~ons
F.espondent. however. interpretat~on senlor-
ln
rot represented s u b j e ~ l l ~ e
rot kgal
IRVING This
was 11,
11.C. indi-
bidual,
llespondent 8(b)(I)(A)
t tor Sec. I5 et
herein
cd
mat-
over
\vitnesses,
tehalf
1.
CWA's
and
orgin,
1976,~
'
WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE NEWSPAPER GUILD 1323
a his
with Respondent. that description
central issue in the Washington grievance.'
prove
of the evidence that Respondent violated
of the We shall, therefore, dis-
the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Pursuant .to Section of the National Labor
Act, a s amended. the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
The record shows that the Employer. in defending the

grievance.
on Kelly's alleged greater for the job.
in reliance upon its own of the
i y provision, deemed Kelly's qualifications irrelevant. We cannot find that
i acted arbitrarily or in derogation of its statutory duly, in doing so.
reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that Bramble admitted to an official of CWA that he had
properly Kelly. However. regardless of Bramble's
view of his actions, we conclude on an objective basis that Respondent did
breach its duty of fair representation under the Act.
DECISION
M. HERMAN. Administrative Law Judge: case
heard before me on April 1977, at Washington,
The charge had been filed by John M. Kelly, an
on January 28, 1977, and duly served on Respon-
dent by registered mail on the same date. Complaint is-
sued June 24, 1977. The primary issue is whether
violated Section of the National La-
Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C., I, seq.),
called the Act, by processing a grievance on behalf
Pauline Washington without allowing the charging party
an opportunity to present to it his position and evidence
relating to the grievance notwithstanding the subject
ttr of the grievance was the Employer's selection of him
her for a job promotion.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
and after due consideration of the briefs filed in
of the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the
following:
I. THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, Respondent admitted at the hear-
Respondent is Local 35 of the Newspaper Guild. AFL-CIO-CLC
and I find that Communications Workers of America,
that during the months immediately preceding issuance
of the complaint CWA received dues and initiation fees in
one

of

THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent (herein sometimes called the Union or the
Guild) is admittedly a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section of the Act.
LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The promotion and the grievance
Respondent is the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in development and research depart-
ment located in Washington, D.C., but covering both the
headquarters district offices of CWA. The contract
provides in article XV, section 2, dealing with promotions,
When more than one employee applies for the vacan-
cy, seniority shall be given primary consideration in
the selection where qualifications are relatively equal.
The contract (art. XXV)also contains the following clause:
In a desire to restate their respective policies, neither
the CWA nor the Guild shall unlawfully discriminate
against any employee because of such employee's
race, color, religion, sex, age, national marital or
parental status.
In August a position of research economist be-
came available. This position was a step above that of re-
search assistant. Kelly and Washington, both research as-
sistants at the time, applied for the opening. A few weeks
later Kelly was informed by the Employer that he had been
given the promotion on the basis of his superior qualifica-
tions. The decision was made upon the recommendation of
Research Department Director Straw.
Kelly had been hired as research assistant October I ,
1974. He had theretofore worked for 2 years as a labor
economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and for 2 more
years at the Congressional Research Service at the Library
of Congress as an analyst in labor economics and labor
relations. At the time of his hire by CWA he had taken
some courses towards his master's degree. In view of his
background and his consequent lesser need for supervisory
help, Kelly's compensation was fixed at a level above the
minimum paid by CWA for that type of work. By the time
of his promotion Kelly had completed his course work for
his master's hut not yet his thesis. Washington had gone to
work for CWA July 16, 1973, in a clerical capacity where
she remained until her promotion to research assistant "a
All dates are in 1976 except as otherwise stated.
'
ASME
OPEIU.
Kel-
1y.4
A
sectlon
XXV the Shop
economist.
4 comp1:lin
charge
her r~ghts;
i.e.. above.'
slic should
partles
erievance and/or an
;he
CWA's
Washingtou's
' testimony.
4She perh~ps mlddle l1.111dles 5uch nldtterb. w.15 otherw~se Gilild'; W h l k Br.rmhle t e , t~ f~ed t h ~ t CWA' represent.~llves I I meeung
ne i the~ [been] ..u.ere nett terr~hlb .twsre ',I the I:ICI that PnuI~ne Wahhlncton worklnr
~ O I I ~ W S : ~n m.151er.s degree ~ l s o : ~ n d u n \ p e r h a p towards [he m ~ d d l e
n~:i\ltr'\." h15 of the meeting wmeone stating Wdsh~ngron
Q. DO recall you told uus " I )e;ir heh311,l" Kell>. ( -WA mulntalns ,I tu111~1n-re~mbursement pro-
crum Ilr cmp;<))t.er.
U
Bramhle ~ e x t ~ f ~ e d !hat C'WA d ~ d nlit Washington
Q. YOU tell "uhlle rhe college'' organlz~ng
1 ~ r p n , ) and .'had dixsounted" .LS .r clerical.
WASHINGTON-BALTlMORE NEWSPAPER 1325
or compromise, even though I had asked for it
in the very first thing I said in the meeting." but far from
answering his and Washington's questions "for example,
with respect to discrimination or seniority . . . it raised
more questions." More particularly, he testified:
Q. Was the question of who had greater seniority
outstanding, shall we say, a t that point?
A. In the mid of-I am not going to say in the
mind-the Research Director stated that he felt that
John Kelly had greater seniority, and I felt just the
opposite because the contract and previous negotia-
tions indicated just the opposite.
Q. Had the question of discrimination been re-
solved at that point to your satisfaction?
A. No.
Q. Had the question of who deserved the promo-
tion, between Mr. Kelly and Ms. Washington, had
been resolved to your satisfaction at that point?
A. No.
Q. Why had it not been resolved?
A. There was certainly a debate going on as to se-
niority, which was a controlling factor when qualifica-
tions are relatively equal. The qualifications of the se-
lectee, John Kelly, were stated in the form of three
Pauline Washington had
less education but she was working on her Master's,
a the selectee, John Kelly, had his course work done
not his thesis of his Master's.
Q. So neither had their Master's. In the area of
work performance, which is one of the three criteria,
employees were working satisfactorily. Neither
had had their pay raises upheld or held
None had been suspended or letters in their
files. Both performing satisfactorily. And in the area
prior experience, there was considerable debate,
Pauline Washington shows in the first step of her
grievance the letter that the selectee, John Kelly. had
compensated prior to his promotion when he was
in at a higher rate. That his prior experience with
Congressional Research Service. Library of
and the Bureau of Labor Statistics of Depart-
ment of Labor had been compensated. He was hired
in at a higher than a start rate.
Q. Did Pauline Washington have any previous
before working a t CWA?
A. That was another thing that concerned me be-
it was not clear to anybody at CWA that she
In fact, they should have been very clear on that
while she was in college she worked for a
of unions organizing. In particular. she
for and OPEIOU. if I recall.
administrative officer (Struzinski) and its counsel,
of whom had "really apprised of the details" . .
therefcae. testifying as
you what them?
A. Yes, I do.
What did them?
A. told them that we met on a first-step informal
procedure; first step of the formal procedure,
I should say, concerning a grievance involving Pauline
Washington who had not been promoted to research
economist, and that the selectee, John Kelly, had
been. And that I had met-Pauline Washington had
asked me to initiate a meeting with Ronnie Straw to
talk about the matter. and I showed them the notes I
had taken and the grievance form that Pauline had
filled out and the attached letter. I also felt that a
number of that had been raised, that it ap-
peared to me that more information should gained
before we decided what we can d o with this. That no
compromise or settlement or adjustment could be
made in that step. I would hope that it might go in the
second step.
They agreed to his recommendation that the Guild
at least to the second step" to get answers to his
questions.
Accordingly, Struzinski wrote CWA on October I that
pursuant to the contract, "the Guild is moving to Step 2 of
the grievance procedure and appealing denial of
the grievance."
The second-step meeting was held on October 22 with
Bramble representing Carroll, assistant to
the CWA president, reiterated that Kelly's selection had
resulted his superior qualifications based upon educa-
tion. prior experience and on-the-job performance. He not-
ed that Kelly was lacking only the completion of his thesis
for his master's He cited Kelly's period of
work experience prior to coming to CWA as compared
with Washington's working as a clerical from July 16, 1973,
prior to joining the Research Department on December I,
Finally, Carroll pointed to a list of seven or eight
specific jobs Kelly had worked on at CWA, to which
Bramble and Washington observed that Washington had
collaborated with Kelly on four or five of them and had
worked on some other projects besides. CWA wrote
on October 28 of its "final position," after careful
consideration, that it was "obvious" that Kelly's qualifica-
tions were "far superior" to Washington's.
Bramble testified that he was concerned over
lack of information about. Washington, that knew
about the selectee but not much about her, about the
grievant." The Guild's representative assembly, composed
of delegates from the various shops, decides whether to
carry a grievance to arbitration. It decided to do so here
upon Struzinski's recommendation in November.
ski testified that she "prefaced" her recommendation "by
an outline of the case." But, asked "Did you specifically
discuss the specific qualifications?" she replied, "I did not
go into BA degree. MA-1 said that they had the
engaged,
the
was
of herher
notes reflect that
- for
know that had worked
was in (evidently referring to her work, noted
her work
investigatiolr
tes-
tlfied
CWA
gven
( I )
and
conflicting
requestthat
( I )
my
~f ?~nsuccessful
you
to
clarified
(1)
1,
VII,
explana-
tlon CWA's
4.
-ULT CREDITED S ~ . R V I C E - N ~ ~
perlod
/ rom initial
reprzsentative
by
co.rtinuous
sllpplied.]
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion-they both had degrees. We felt with the
that the qualifications were relatively equal." Bramble
that "Perhaps she just stated the facts of the case and
asked for approval. I don't recall exactly how it was
phrased."
2. Kelly's correspondence with Struzinski
Bramble notified Kelly in the latter part of November
that the Guild was taking Washington's grievance to arbi-
tration. Until that time, Kelly testified, the grievance did
not pose "too much of a problem" for him because he felt
that after scrutinizing it "the Guild on its own would have
come to the conclusion that the grievance wasn't worth-
while pursuing." On December 1, however, Kelly sent the
following letter to Struzinski:
Dear Ms. Struzinski:
I have recently been informed by .Anthony Bram-
ble, the shop steward for the Unit of the Guild,
that the Local Guild has notified CWA of its intention
to pursue the September 27, 1976 grievance of Pauline
Washington to arbitration. You will recall that this
grievance involved a promotion to Research Econo-
mist which the grievant claims she was entitled on the
basis of her seniority. I was eventually selected for the
position over the grievant on the basis of qualifica-
tions. The Guild-CWA contract states that seniority
shall be primary consideration in the selection
for promotions where qualifications are relatively
equal.
I feel that in pursuing this grievance of the unsuc-
cessful bidder, the WBNG breached its duty of fair
representation to me when it took up the grievance
and began processing it through the grievance proce-
dure without offering me an opportucity to present
my case to it nor (2) making any effort to assess inde-
pendently the relative qualifications of the unsuccess-
ful bidder and myself.
As the exclusive bargaining agent. the WBNG has
the duty to fairly and adequately represent the interest
of "all" its members not to pursue grievances in
an arbitrary, biased, or perfunctory manner, especially
in cases where the interests of its members
are involved. The Guild's pursuit of the unsuccessful
bidder's grievance is a real threat to my present posi-
tion and well being.
I hereby you suspend further action on
this grievance, especially proceeding to arbitration.
until you have given me the opportunity to present
my case justifying selection over the grievant and
(2) independently assessed the relative qualifications
the bidder and myself. In the event
that comply with this request and still decide
pursue the grievance to arbitration, I would like to
be informed of your reasoning.
On the question of whether the grievant has greater
seniority than I, the Guild has made a somewhat arbi-
trary decision that I would like and formal-
ized.
started working as a Kesearch Assistant in the
CWA Research Department in October, 1974, at
which time I also became a member of the Guild Lo-
cal. The grievant, however. did not join the staff of the
Research Department and did not become a member
of the Guild until December, 1974 or even later. Prior
to December, 1974 she worked as a clerk-typist for
CWA and was a member of the Office. Professional
Employees International Union (OPEIU).
The question here is whether the grievant's seniority
which she accumrilated while a member of OPEIU
carries over to the Guild unit for promotional pur-
poses.
Would you kindly inform me of the following:
Do you interpret the CWA-Local Guild
agreement as requiring that seniority acquired in
one bargaining unit (in this case OPEIU) may be
exercised in another (in this case the Guild) for pro-
motional purposes?
(2) Where in the CWA-Guild agreement does it
state or imply that seniority for promotional pur-
poses is accrued on a company-wide basis and is
transferable between bargaining units in the organi-
zation (CWA)?
Sincerely yours,
John M. Kelly
Struzinski replied as follows on December 6:
Dear Brother Kelly:
In response to the questions you raise in your letter
of December 1976:
1 . Yes. I d o interpret the agreement regarding senior-
ity to mean total employment with CWA.
EXPLANATION: The agreement between CWA and
WBNG. Article Section 5 reads:
"Wherever seniority is referred to in this agreement
it shall mean the net credited service of the employee."
In order to fully understand the meaning of this sec-
tion. one must refer back to the bargaining history.
During the negotiations for an initial contract with
CWA. the Guild requested and received an
from CWA re: "net credited service."
then Chief Negotiator, Bill Dunn, explained that all
service with CWA from the date of initial hiring is
considered when referring to "net credited service."
Dunn further stated he would get the information re-
quested by the Guild to us in writing. Shortly after the
negotiations, Dunn retired and Bill Webb followed
through on the Guild's request.
In his letter of October 1973 Webb states the fol-
lowing:
Credited Service shall
be that of continuous full-time employment in
the service of CWA rhe dare of hiring, in-
cluding any leave of absence for which approval was
granted (with service to be continued) by an author-
ized of CWA. Interrupted service may
be bridged the CWA Executive Board f t e r five (5)
years of full-time employment." [Emphasis
I
:. pro-
agree-
rlent
One Article 5
r.owhere