Grievant Carol Behrenbruch received and signed a modified job offer on June 15, 2016. The employee received a modified position based on the grievant physical limitations given by her selected physician. The union contends the grievant can do work in her bid position and should not receive a modified job offer with two hours in the Automation. Reviewing the grievant Employee Everything Reports from YrPPWk: 16-1 to 18-2 the employee is working the full scope of her bid job. There is no adverse or disruptive impact on the employee.
There is no statement from the grievant to actually view her contentions. Step 2 requested the employee’s statement but the union advised the grievant call to the Union Hall and complained Clerk Craft Director. …show more content…
The doctor provided the agency with a CA-17 dated 08/03/16 with grievant limited activities. Going to the DIOSS and Flat Sorter machine are within the physical limitation the grievant. The doctor does not tell the agency what type of job to provide the limited duty work. Management posed no Safety and Health violation against the grievant under Article 14 of the CBA. A modified job offer for Limited/Light Duty employees is provided according to their medical requirements. Physical restrictions is the determining factor not, color, age, religion and disability. Each individual who have a temporary to permanent limitation receive jobs based on physician physical restrictions not personal feelings. Management did not discrimination against the grievant regarding her modified job offer; Article 2 in the CBA. Management implements the job in accordance with Article 30, Article 19, and Article 17, of the CBA, Handbooks, and Federal Laws. According to the grievant Clock rings the employee primarily stays within her unit. The other unit’s management sends the grievant are within her physical limitation. The grievant continued to bring medical documentation with the same restrictions. The agency provides the job offer not the doctor. The agency uses the doctor’s limitations not suggestions. It is Management position the Union failed to provide ample evidence a contractual violation
There is no statement from the grievant to actually view her contentions. Step 2 requested the employee’s statement but the union advised the grievant call to the Union Hall and complained Clerk Craft Director. …show more content…
The doctor provided the agency with a CA-17 dated 08/03/16 with grievant limited activities. Going to the DIOSS and Flat Sorter machine are within the physical limitation the grievant. The doctor does not tell the agency what type of job to provide the limited duty work. Management posed no Safety and Health violation against the grievant under Article 14 of the CBA. A modified job offer for Limited/Light Duty employees is provided according to their medical requirements. Physical restrictions is the determining factor not, color, age, religion and disability. Each individual who have a temporary to permanent limitation receive jobs based on physician physical restrictions not personal feelings. Management did not discrimination against the grievant regarding her modified job offer; Article 2 in the CBA. Management implements the job in accordance with Article 30, Article 19, and Article 17, of the CBA, Handbooks, and Federal Laws. According to the grievant Clock rings the employee primarily stays within her unit. The other unit’s management sends the grievant are within her physical limitation. The grievant continued to bring medical documentation with the same restrictions. The agency provides the job offer not the doctor. The agency uses the doctor’s limitations not suggestions. It is Management position the Union failed to provide ample evidence a contractual violation