Unilateral management policy changes about past practices can be successfully resolved in the grievance procedure. There are interesting cases published in the Bureau of National Affairs' Labor Arbitration Reports involving past practice arbitration disputes in which the arbitrator ruled to continue a past practice even where existing contract language was to the contrary. However, they are exceptions rather than the rule, and usually involved extenuating circumstances that had weakened the contract.

There are some questions to answer in past practice disputes;

 

Does the agreement contain a clause recognizing that existing customs, precedents, conditions, practices and unwritten agreements not affected by the agreement shall continue for the life of the contract?

 

Is the past practice something that is of considerable benefit to employees?

 

Are existing conditions of such a nature that continuation of the past practice is reasonable and logical? Or, alternatively, have conditions changed to render the old practice or system inadequate?

 

Have previous grievances been filed and satisfactorily settled relative to the past practice?

 

Is there evidence that the past practice has been discussed and orally agreed to by the parties?

 

Has the past practice been consistently applied over a long period of time to an identifiable group of workers, or to all members within the bargaining unit?

 

Does the past practice represent a violation of a work rule or policy which has not been enforced by management over a long period of time?

 

Did management give written notice to employees, or discuss a change in policy with MCO before making the change in past practices?

 

Does the past practice contribute to inefficient or uneconomical operation of the organization? Or, alternatively, is the practice one which does not harm the employer?

 

Is the past practice one of which management was fully aware and made no previous attempt to limit or prevent?

 

Does the past practice represent a mutually accepted waiver or abandonment of a written agreement between the parties of demonstrable long standing?

 

Does the past practice violate a local, state or federal statute?

 

Is management misinterpreting the agreement to eradicate or change a past practice?

 

Is the past practice or benefit an inconsequential matter of little importance to employees?

 

Is the past practice or policy one which benefits the employer and to which the Union has clearly agreed to for a considerable period of time?

 

Does change to past practice impose a serious burden upon members' working conditions? Or, alternatively, on the employer?

 

Has the changed practice involved insertion of changed contract language, the intent of which was not clear to the Union at the time of negotiation?

 

Does the past practice involve misuse or abuse of original agreement made orally between workers and Union and management?

 

Did the Union propose and fail to secure a contract clause relative to the past practice in negotiations?

 

Is there a contract clause that specifically allows the employer to change past practices or precedents?

 

Is the past practice one which creates unsafe or dangerous conditions? The preceding general considerations were gleaned from the RCA series referred to in the opening paragraph. An almost identical series of reports (they may report different cases, however) is published by the Commerce Clearing House, Washington, D.C. 20004, titled Labor Arbitration Awards. Both have good indices for hunting up cases of almost every specific type a Union officer is likely to become involved in.