William E. Riker ARBITRATOR

Transcription

1 William E. Riker ARBITRATOR IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES In the Matter of a Controversy between AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS GUILD, CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 193, Guild, and, SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Employer, RE: Termination of Mary Newman William E. Riker ARBITRATOR San Francisco, California February 1, 2000 C.S.M.C.S. Case No This arbitration arises pursuant to the Agreement between American Federation of Teachers Guild, California Federation of Teachers, Local 193, hereinafter the "Guild" who is the certified representative for the office technical employee, and San Diego Community College District, hereinafter the "Employer" and/or "District." 15 Santa Paula Avenue, San Francisco. California * WERARB@Earthlink.net * Southern California: P. O. Box Encino, California Member, National Academy of Arbitrators

2 Page 2 The arbitration was heard on Friday, October 22 and Saturday, October 23, 1999 in a Conference Room at 1536 Frazee Road, San Diego, California before William E. Riker, who was selected by the parties from a list of arbitrators submitted by the California Mediation and Conciliation Service. The Guild raised a procedural issue relating to timeliness, claiming that the District failed to impose discipline within 90 days from the date it knew of allegations of misconduct by the appellant as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and thus is prohibited from imposing discipline. The parties agreed that in all other respects the matter is properly before the arbitrator for his review and decision. The Employer and Guild were afforded full opportunity to present their respective positions. This included examination and cross-examination of witnesses, acceptance of relevant exhibits, and argument. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties elected to submit post-hearing briefs. The briefs were received on or before December 29, 1999 and considered by the arbitrator to have been timely filed.

3 Page 3 (619) APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF THE GUILD JAMES M. GATTEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW PATRICK T. COONEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. GATTEY 2445 Fifth Avenue, Suite 350 San Diego, California ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYER DEBRA L. BRAY, ATTORNEY AT LAW LIEBERT CASSIDY 6033 W. Century Blvd., Suite 601 Los Angeles, California (310) ISSUE Whether there was good or just cause for termination. If not, what should be the appropriate recommended remedy? Article XX -_Discipline and Due Process 20.1 Discipline RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE DOCUIMENTS I. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT No employee can be disciplined for any single incident beyond ninety (90) calendar days following the occurrence or knowledge of said incident by the supervisor... II. HUMAN RESOURCE MANUAL DI-3110 DISCIPLINARY CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION #7 - Misuse, unauthorized removal from the premises of records, equipment, files, documents, or confidential information. #13 - Any conduct of such a nature that it causes discredit to the agency, or his or her employment.

4 Page 4 #16 - Violation of any lawful or official policy, procedure, regulation or order, or failure to obey any lawful and reasonable direction given by a supervisor when such an act results in loss, inconvenience, or injury to the District, the public, or other employees or students. #20 - Any other act of an employee which is deemed negligent or unsatisfactory, and is in conflict with the furtherance of organizational goals and objectives. III. SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MANUAL CHAPTER IV Confidential Information A.- Members of the department shall treat as confidential the official business of the department. They should not discuss or impart same to anyone except those for whom it is intended, or as directed by their supervisory officers, or under due process of law. CHAPTER V Violation of Laws No member of the department shall willfully violate any state law, federal statute, or local ordinance General Behavior No member shall act or behave in any official capacity in such a manner as to bring discredit upon himself/herself or the department. IV. CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 182. (a) (5) P.C. Criminal Conspiracy If two or more persons conspire: to pervert or obstruct justice (a) (1)P.C. Every person who willfully delays or obstructs any peace officer in the discharge of or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or equipment. BACKGROUND The grievant in this matter commenced her employment with the District in May From January 1990 until her termination, effective June 1, 1999, she was assigned in a clerical capacity

5 Page 5 with the Mesa College Police Department. on April 13, 1999 she was advised that she was being placed on administrative leave with pay. On May 11, 1999, Police Chief David Worden of the San Diego Community College District advised Mary Newman that he received a recommendation from Lieutenant Jose Vargas that she be term inated from her position of clerical assistant: (Joint Exhibit 3) "on January 27, 1990 at approximately 0900 hours, you received in your capacity as clerical assistant confidential information of an ongoing criminal investigation involving a District employee assigned to another department at Mesa College. You knowingly and willingly and without authorization released this information to a person outside of the Police Department, specifically your sister Ann McCartney. You conspired with your sister to release this information to Brian Baccus who was the subject of the criminal investigation. Your release of this information constitutes a gross act of obstruction of justice, delayed the criminal investigation, jeopardized the safety of persons involved in the investigation and allowed the subjects of the investigation to destroy evidence crucial to the investigation. The criminal investigation was being conducted by local and federal law enforcement agencies in cooperation with the District's Police Department. Your conduct served to bring discredit to the District and to the District's Police Department and was in direct

6 conflict with the District Police Department goals and objections."... Page 6 A pre-disciplinary hearing was scheduled for May 19, On May 28, 1999, Assistant Chancellor of Human Resources Wayne Murphy advised Mary Newman "that on May 26, 1999 the Board of Trustees of the San Diego Community College District voted to continue you on paid administrative leave upon specific conditions with which you did not agree. Therefore, your employment is terminated effective June 1, 1999."... In the same communication Ms. Newman was also advised of her right to a hearing. "You have a right to a hearing on this determination to terminate your District employment and therefore, under the terms of the Office Technical Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article XX, Section you may request advisory arbitration. A request for arbitration must be made in accordance with the Article XXI, Section " (District's Exhibit 2) Ms. Newman elected to appeal her termination and the issue before the arbitrator is the same that gave rise to the grievance. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES GUILD It is the threshold argument of the Union that the District is prohibited from imposing discipline since they failed to impose discipline within 90 days from the date they knew of allegations of misconduct by the appellant. Whether the discipline imposed stems from the incident which allegedly occurred on January 27 or from when the immediate supervisor had knowledge (January 28 or February 2) until the date of termination, the District substantially exceeded the period of time allocated under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Even taking into account the extension of time from April 15 until April 27 the District exceeded its allocated time period. There can be little question about the clarity of the contract language requiring that notice of the imposition itself,

7 Page 7 rather than notice of intent to discipline, must be issued within 90 days of knowledge of the incident, which serves as the basis for the discipline. The arbitrator suggested that a different interpretation might be given to the language of the CBA in the context of the specific facts of the case based on assertions that the District Police Department, at the request of police authorities investigating Brian Baccus, was asked not to conduct an administrative investigation until the criminal investigation had been completed. No language of the CBA was cited to support such an interpretation nor was there any assertion of any history or past practice that would permit such a delay in the investigation and thereby render the language of the CBA meaningless. There is nothing about the purpose of the notice of imposition of discipline provisions of the CBA that would suggest they should be rendered meaningless at the request of some outside agency. The lieutenant testified that by February 2 there was a strong suspicion that Mary Newman had leaked information. He couldn't draw that conclusion as far as an administrative investigation was concerned until he was able to identify who the parties were. Clearly by January 28 when he instructed Sergeant Vasquez to write the report about the series of calls on the 27th of January, Lieutenant Vargas knew who the parties were in the events of January 27, The District's election to completely ignore their specific obligation to impose discipline within a specific period of time following an incident of alleged mis-

8 Page 8 conduct is understandable, but their rationalization for such failure in light of specific evidence is laughable. Clearly, the District failed to comply with the clear and explicit language of the CBA and therefore cannot be allowed to proceed to impose discipline. In turning to the merits of the appeal the Union's position is that the District failed to meet its burden of proving misconduct. The evidence has not established the dismissal of a long-term employee charged with criminal conduct, which is entirely circumstantial and founded solely on hearsay statements of an asserted con artist. The District's attempt to terminate a long-term employee whose career, until the January 27, 1999 allegations was completely free of discipline, cannot be upheld. The charges in order to be sustained must meet a more demanding level of proof than what is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. The sole corroboration utilized by the District to terminate the appellant was that she worked for the police department and that she and her sister were employees of the District. Clearly that status does not constitute misconduct. Ms. Newman consistently denied any involvement in any scheme to transmit information to Brian Baccus. The facts are that the District's investigation failed to address any substantive allegations of misconduct by the appellant. They failed to produce any evidence that Ms. Newman had any information that Baccus was the subject of an investigation, and

9 Page 9 no evidence to establish that anyone told Mary Newman that Baccus was a subject of a criminal investigation. Admittedly, the transcript of the Baccus interview is hearsay and just as clearly is the Baccus statement overheard by Sergeant Stone. In fact, the Sergeant's report of what he heard Baccus say was not based on any notes taken while listening to the conversation, was not based upon any recording made of the statement, and merely represented the sergeant's interpretation of what he thought he heard. As noted by the arbitrator, hearsay testimony is evaluated based on the weight of the evidence. "Hearsay is likely to be accorded little weight unless it is corroborated by other testimony or supported by strong or direct evidence." (Zack, Understanding Grievance Arbitration in the Public Sector, 1974). Corroboration would also require direct evidence that Newman had learned of a criminal investigation regarding Baccus being conducted by Sergeant Stone and that she knew the number from which the sergeant had called. It would also have to be proven that Newman was afraid to call Baccus because she believed the Department's phone lines were monitored. There would also have to be direct evidence that Newman's sister located Baccus based on the information and, at the request of her sister, located his phone number, called him and paged him from a meeting and related the information she had received from Mary Newman. Such a scenario defies common sense and logic. However, Lieutenant Vargas, Chief Worden, and the District, blindly accepted

10 Page 10 it without undertaking the minimal investigation that might have exposed the flaws. The District relied entirely upon the contents of a hearsay conversation between two convicted con men. There is nothing in the record to suggest any degree of accuracy or credibility in which to base the termination of a long-term employee with no prior disciplinary record. The decision to terminate appellant must be set aside and Mary Newman be reinstated with back pay and benefits restored from the date of her termination. DISTRICT/EMPLOYER It is the position of the District that the matter is not only timely but the evidence supports the charges and the discipline imposed for such a serious breach of security and confidentiality is warranted. The time started running in compliance with Article XX when the Police Chief received word from the San Diego Police Department that someone in the District's Police Department had leaked information regarding an ongoing investigation. Although January 27, 1999 was the day of the incident it was not until February 2, 1999 that the Chief received the report. There were 73 days between February 2 and April 16. The reason for the delay before the administrative interview was originally scheduled was because the San Diego City Police Department was conducting a very high profile criminal investigation. The Employer held off the administrative review while they conducted their criminal investigation.

11 Page The Guild asked for a continuation and waived the period from April 16th to the 27th. Therefore, the time involved would run from the 27th because that's when the District had sufficient facts to move forward with the investigation and charges. The time, for purposes of Article XX, runs from April 27, 1999 and therefore the June lst termination date is not outside the perimeters of the contract terms. The District has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mary Newman was terminated for just cause. She is guilty of the charges for which she is terminated. There should be no dispute that she had regular access to confidential information and clearly understood that the information she had access to at the police department was to remain confidential. She understood that the leak of information of an ongoing investigation could compromise not only the investigation but had the potential of placing others engaged in the investigation in danger. Finally, Mary Newman knew that any violation of the rules could result in discipline up to and including termination. When the grievant released information through her sister to Baccus, a suspect in the police and secret service undercover operation, so that he became aware he was being investigated, she was subject to having her employment with the District severed. The burden of proof has been met through circumstantial evidence, which is basically evidence that proves a fact from which an inference can be drawn. An inference is a deduction of fact

12 Page 12 that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence. Finding through circumstantial evidence the degree of proof required is a respected method of proof and is respected for such convincing force as it may carry. Sergeant Stone heard a conversation between Baccus and the confidential informant. Baccus told the informant that a female at the Mesa College Police Office had phoned her sister who also worked at the District and the sister paged him out of a meeting. Baccus told the confidential informant that the friend in the police department got the information from the supervisor's notes. Newman was the only female employee in the Mesa College Police Office who also had a sister who worked for the District. Sergeant Stone was highly credible in his testimony, and had a very specific recollection, and he documented the conversation between Baccus and the confidential informant regarding a female in the Mesa Police Department who called her sister. Baccus on the other hand is totally lacking in credibility. He has been convicted of fraudulent activities and other serious crimes and his story is inconsistent with his earlier declarations and the statements he gave to the private investigator. His story about how he obtained the number for the financial department and Sergeant Stone's identity is illogical and completely lacking in credibility. There are no reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence other than the one reached by the District. Mary Newman

13 Page 13 released information which resulted in a suspect in a fraud investigation being warned that he was being investigated. Sergeant Stone's identity and phone number were also provided to the suspect. This conduct justifies nothing short of termination. The proven facts regarding the grievant's misconduct shows there was harm to the public service and a likelihood of future harm if such conduct were repeated. The actions on the grievant's part justifies nothing short of termination and the District asks the hearing officer to recommend that the termination be upheld. DISCUSSION AND OPINION The arbitrator has considered the threshold issue raised by the Guild that the District failed to process the discipline in a timely manner. It is the understanding of the arbitrator that it is the Guild's contention that the clarity of the contract language requires that notice of imposition of discipline must be issued within 90 days of knowledge of the incident. Since the incident for which the discipline was imposed occurred on January 27, 1999 and the letter of termination was issued on May 28, 1999, the time limits are clearly beyond the 90 days and therefore the matter must be dismissed. The arbitrator has considered and rejected the Guild's arguments, and based on the particular facts of this case finds the matter to be timely and properly before the arbitrator for his decision and recommendation to the parties.

14 Page 14 The District, as well as the personnel involved in law enforcement, had a material concern for maintaining the integrity of the criminal investigation. Any communication or disciplinary notice informing the two sisters that they were going to be charged with leaking information to a person suspected of criminal misconduct could have placed those involved in the undercover operation in a dangerous and perhaps life-threatening situation. It is certainly possible that the law enforcement community had an interest in the possible criminal aspects of Newman's activities. The fact that the District Attorney for the City declined to take the case charging Mary Newman and her sister with the criminal aspects of obstruction, would indicate to this arbitrator that there had been relevant issues that had been discussed by the District and the San Diego Police Department. The context of the incident and its aftermath must be viewed with common sense and reason. Based on the facts of this particular case, the District, along with the law enforcement members, should have had the latitude to not compromise the investigation and assure the safety and integrity of all those involved in the undercover operation. The arbitrator has also considered the fact that Mary Newman and her sister were on paid administrative leave up until the notice of termination, which obviates any negative aspects of the extended processing of the discipline including her due process

15 Page 15 notice in accordance with the terms of Article XX of the CBA. No income or benefit loss was incurred and there was no evidence or testimony that Ms. Newman's case, or that of her sister's, had been materially diminished due to processing of the dispute to the final step in the process. A more reasonable determination of when the time period began to run, is either from the date of the arrest of Baccus in March which, in effect, was the completion of the undercover operation, or the day of the intended investigator's meeting in April of Under either of these dates, the matter is timely and within the intent of Article XX of the CBA. In reaching a finding that the District processed the disciplinary action in a timely manner the arbitrator turns to the review of the merits of the grievance as raised by Ms. Newman. The pursuit of truth is always difficult when the elements of an issue can only be derived from circumstantial evidence. The additional task of determining just cause, as in this case where there are extraordinary factors, is significantly more elusive. Neutrals, who are assigned by the parties the task of seeking truth and justice, utilize a variety of factors in order to arrive at a finding. One of the methods by which credibility and veracity can be determined is through an analysis of the comparison of the responses of witnesses under direct examination, and the consistency of their responses when being cross-examined when relating to the same set of facts.

16 Page 16 Another material element in determining just cause is the question of whether the moving party (Employer) undertook and conducted a full and fair investigation before determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charges. They are required to clearly and convincingly prove to the satisfaction of the arbitrator that they undertook a full and fair investigation before reaching their conclusion that Ms. Newman was guilty of the charges. The parties have argued most strenuously regarding the level of proof required in order to support their respective positions. The District believes that the level of proof in this disciplinary matter should be no more than a tipping of the scales no matter how slight or what is legally defined as a preponderance of the evidence. The Guild, on the other hand, suggests that in order to establish guilt, the District must prove that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes the charges that Ms. Newman leaked confidential information, and that it is a violation of the policies and procedures of the District and the Mesa College Police Department. Certainly, there is no question that Ms. Newman, with her long tenure of service, was or should have been aware of her responsibilities as an employee of the college and the demands placed upon her as an employee of a law enforcement agency. She was aware that a violation of the policies, particularly of confidentiality, could result in discipline up to and including termination of her employment for a first time offense.

17 Page 17 After reviewing all of the evidence, it is the opinion of this arbitrator that there were a a number of questions that the District either ignored or failed to give any material weight to in determining Ms. Newman's guilt or innocence. It is certainly understandable that Sergeant Stone was both shocked and angered with the telephone call he had received from Mr. Baccus which had been left on his voice mail. It immediately raised suspicion on his part, and subsequently on the part of the college when it occurred shortly after his inquiry into Baccus's employment, or attendance at Mesa College. The conversation he listened to on February 1, 1999, between the informant and Baccus, unquestionably confirmed his suspicion that Ms. Newman had to be the guilty person from the college police department who had leaked information to Baccus. In the opinion of the arbitrator, when that information was communicated to law enforcement officials at the college, the blinders went up and the conclusion was drawn by Vasquez, Vargas, and Worden as to Ms. Newman's guilt. The extended time from the incident of January 27th until the notice of the charges on May 11, 1999 was not devoted to finding out if there were any other factors that the District could have considered before making the decision that Mary Newman and Ann McCartney were guilty of transmitting information to Baccus. There were a number of areas that were gray enough to be evaluated by either Sergeant Vasquez or Lieutenant Vargas and the arbitrator will address these items: First, the two employees charged with wrongdoing were long-term employees (26 and 12 years

18 Page 18 respectively) of impeccable work history. There was no evidence or inference that they were anything but loyal and trusted employees and had no prior disciplinary record. Second, they were consistent in their denial that they did not violate any District rule or procedure. Third, there was no evidence presented or even inferred that either of the employees had a personal relationship with Baccus. Fourth, that contrary to the charges there were other individuals who were advised that the police were making in quiries regarding Brian Baccus. Sergeant Vasquez testified as to the following: (Transcript, pp 126, 127) "...Call Terry Davis's office, the Business Manager at Mesa, ask his secretary Sharon to look up Brian Baccus, whether he's an employee here and where he's at. In the meantime, I'll call and find out if I can find him. So I called John Baker, he's a VP of student services and he wasn't in. So then I called Lori Adrian, Student Affairs Office person there, but she wasn't in. But a lady that answered the phone -- I didn't ask her name -- and asked, 'well, maybe you can help me. Do you know of a person, Brian Baccus, that used to work on campus?' She said, "Oh yeah, he use to work here, he was a volunteer with us.' I said, 'well, do you know if he's employed with us?' 'Yeah, he works over at L.R.C. for Dean Raymond Johnson. Therefore, it is clear that according to the record more than one person other than Mary Newman knew that the police were making inquiries regarding Brian Baccus. Also, it should have been a factor when Sergeant Stone reported the conversation between Baccus and the informant, in which it was mentioned that there was a police department employee and a sister that gave information

19 Page 19 to Baccus as to whether there were other "sister employees" who worked with the police at the District. Since there was no taping of the conversation between Baccus and the informant, there is no conclusive evidence establishing that Baccus was specific in stating Mesa College when it could have been an inclusive term for the District's law enforcement operation. At the hearing, Mary Newman testified that when Sergeant Vasquez asked her to call regarding Baccus she did, and made an inquiry at the Student Affairs Office and talked with Carlotta Middleton: (Transcript, pp 39, 40, 41) Q. And after that telephone call, did you make any other telephone calls to attempt to locate Mr. Baccus? A. Yes. Q. Who did you call? A. I called the Student Affairs Office. Q. Do you remember to whom you spoke there? A. I believe it was Carlotta. Q. Carlotta who? A. Carlotta Middleton. Q. Do you know Carlotta Middleton? A. Yes. Q. Do you know her sister? A. Yes. Q. Who is her sister? A. Elcia Rozier.

20 Page 20 Q. Where does Ms. Rozier work? A. College Police, City Campus. Q. Did you work with Ms. Rozier when you were down at City Campus? A. No. Q. Where did she work? A. At that time she was not an employee. Q. I see. Do you remember anything about your conversation with Ms. Middleton? Let's approach it this way: Do you remember what you asked or what information you gave Ms. Middleton? A. I think I asked her -- first, I called, I guess, myself and I told her that we were trying to find out if there was a Brian Baccus working on campus. Q. Do you remember her response? A. I remember hearing her start to respond and at the same time I could hear Sergeant Vasquez yelling from his office "I found him." Q. And did you terminate your call with Ms. Middleton at that point in time? A. I asked to let me get back with her. According to the testimony of Lieutenant Vargas, he admitted that he knew there was an employee by the name of Carlotta Middleton who worked in the office of Lori Adrian. However, there is absolutely no evidence that either Lieutenant Vargas or Sergeant Vasquez did any investigation on that relationship. The arbitrator has also considered the testimony of Newman and McCartney as to their relationship with Baccus and the testi-

21 Page 21 mony regarding the individual who gave the information to Sergeant Vasquez regarding Baccus's status. Ms. Newman didn't even know if Baccus was still employed at the college, whereas the individual who took the call not only knew that but was close enough to Baccus that she knew what his status was at the time of the inquiry on January 27, Finally, there is the question of who, if anyone, rifled through Sergeant Vasquez's papers that were on his desk on January 27th. It doesn't make sense that Newman, who had access to Vasquez's desk would leave it in the disarray that he claims it was after returning to his office on January 28th. Again, it is an issue that is relevant towards establishing Newman's involvement in conspiring to giving confidential information to an individual with whom she and/or her sister had had only a casual relationship. As noted above, the District has suggested a level of proof that merely and ever so slightly tips the scale one way or the other. The Guild has suggested the evidence must be clear and convincing. We know from the decision of the District Attorney when he declined to prosecute, that there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal indictment that had to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the industrial dispute settlement arena, the preponderance of arbitrators do not particularly categorize the level of proof as any more than what is necessary to persuade the arbitrator.

22 Page 22 In this case it is the finding, based on the entire record, that the District failed to conduct a full, fair, and impartial investigation. They accepted the San Diego Police Department's analysis and conclusion, and accepted it as their own. In this respect, they must be held accountable for their election to not go beyond interviewing Vasquez, Newman and McCartney, when it would have been essential to explore all reasonable avenues before closing them. Termination of an employee is always a serious matter. In this particular situation, any questions or suspicions about a criminal conspiracy and violation of confidential information should have aroused a greater concern about evaluating all of the possibilities surrounding the investigation of this case. It is evident from the record that at no time during the extended period of this investigation (January 27th until May 11, 1999) did the District conduct their own independent investigation. Apparently, they merely rubber-stamped the San Diego Police Department's version of the events. Obviously the District did not believe it was important for them to determine the credibility of other employees including those who might shed any light as to the possible truth of these events. When determining guilt through circumstantial evidence, it is always critical that the investigator evaluate the credibility of those who may have an impact on the truth, i.e., Baccus, the informant, Middleton, Rozier, Adrian, Dean Johnson, other sergeants and personnel, who had access to Vasquez's desk.

23 Page 23 The District, through its witnesses, has not presented any evidence that any of the above persons were contacted nor were statements taken as to the events surrounding the incident. To reiterate, after a full and fair investigation the District may very well have reached the same decision, that Mary Newman was guilty as charged. However, the District must bear the brunt of their election to not explore all the avenues of possibility in order to determine probability. It is the decision of the arbitrator, based on the particular facts of this case, that a full and fair investigation was not undertaken by the Employer before deciding that Mary Newman was guilty of leaking the confidential information to a suspected criminal. It is the recommendation of the arbitrator that the Board of Directors recognize the deficiency and overturn Ms. Newman's termination and restore her to her job, with full back pay, benefits, and seniority. DECISION Grievance/appeal of Mary Newman is sustained. I I DATED WILLIAM E. RIKER ARBITRATOR