Collective Bargaining Agreement Uft

Grant criticizes the UFT for breaching its duty of fair representation in five respects in late 2011 and early 2012: (1) by failing to assert its delegation more than a month after the announcement of the abandonment by the FTU; (2) by “insurmountable diversion to the UCP” and by Grant`s unverted interests at the November 16, 2011 meeting; (3) by the lack of prompt follow-up of the complaint after it has been filed; (4) by going back to the UCP and not defending its interests in the first phase of April 2012; (5) by requiring Grant to sign an agreement that frees UFT from liability so that it can work again. (SAC 27.) Assuming the veracity of these assertions, the court concludes that the alleged conduct is based on a reasonable finding that UFT acted arbitrarily and in bad faith in its portrayal of Grant. Avenue S 2015-18 Collective Agreement Between the United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, NYSUT, AFL-CIO and United Cerebral Palsy of NYC Avenue S. Nevertheless, the Tribunal finds that Grant`s allegations, based on the 2009 and 2010 complaints, do not result in a plausible assertion in favour of dismissing Grant`s allegations that UCP`s conduct allowed the UCP to act with little responsibility and prevented the union from properly assessing whether the complaints should be submitted to arbitration. , are nothing more than conclusive assertions that have no factual basis in the record. Grant asserts that there was no indication that their complaints had been upheld, but in writing for non-justification, or that UFT would have decided to refer its complaints to an arbitration tribunal if written reasons had been used to justify the refusal. While Grant could demonstrate that it was prejudiced by the failure of UFT to impose this particular provision of the CBA, there is no indication that this omission was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith. Grant does not argue that UFT was motivated by an improper purpose to its members to require no written grounds for refusal of appeal, nor does it assert that the requirement was ignored only with respect to their complaints (on the contrary, the complaint states that the seller “never set out his reasons in writing” (SAC 22 (emphasized)).