During 2001, the school district decided to eliminate the leader positions. Some of the work performed was shifted to the chief engineers and forepersons. Building checks and alarm work were being performed outside the unit. The Union filed a grievance challenging the use of non bargaining unit employees to perform bargaining unit work.

The Union maintained that the contract clearly identified the duties of building leaders, engineer leaders, and maintenance leaders. Those duties included building checks, alarms, snow removal, and work on election days. The Union argued that the work had been improperly been performed in breach of the contract.

The employer maintained a past practice existed affording engineers and forepersons the right to the work. The employer further argued management's right to assign work.

The arbitrator found that the employer's past practice defense was unpersuasive for a number of reasons:

The arbitrator ruled that the contract provides "No supervisory personnel, teachers, students, or outside group will perform work of a bargaining unit member, except in emergency circumstances or agreement with the Union."

This contractual provision, he states, is clear, precise, and unequivocal. There is no ambiguity. It provides that only in an emergency situation or in agreement with the Union may supervisors perform unit work. He concluded that where contract language is "precise and unequivocal, as here, alleged past practice has no relevance to alter the clear meaning of a contractual provision. Furthermore, whatever past practice may exist has far less sweeping implications than that advanced by the employer."

The employer argued in further defense that building leaders were intended to be supervisors who exercised disciplinary duties. Since these employees did not perform that duty, they had no alternative but to eliminate the position and assign their duties to the forepersons and chief engineers. The arbitrator rejected this theory indicating that the job descriptions did not reflect such duty. "The parties to the contract were experienced negotiations. Consequently, had they intended to afford leaders disciplinary responsibilities, they surely would have incorporated the language required to achieve this outcome. . . there is nothing in the record to suggest that leaders performed in any role greater than that performed by a crew leader or lead person who typically lacks full supervisory authority. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the leader should have exercised disciplinary authority, the leader's refusal to perform such duties would not reasonable justify the unilateral withdrawal of bargaining unit work, when much of the dispute work involved routine alarm and building checks that typically could be performed by employees without supervision.

"Finally, the arbitrator recognizes that the employer exercises the authority to fill or not fill a vacancy. Yet management's failure to assign employees to vacant leader positions cannot be used to camouflage or negate the right of employees to perform tasks that are contractually designated as bargaining unit work."

In summary, the arbitrator determined that the work remains within the jurisdiction of building leaders. By removing all such work from the bargaining unit and routinely assigning such work to chief engineers and forepersons, the employer violated the agreement.

The bargaining unit employees were entitled to relief for the work from the date of the grievance to the date of the award. The parties were order to confer for the purposes of determining on the basis of payroll records the identity of employees and the amount of back pay ordered. The district was ordered to compensate employees for the work in question.