Arguing a Grievance Is Like Arguing a Court Case

If you want to win your grievance, you need to know what argument to use and how to support your claim

To be a good steward you need to be part detective and part lawyer. When you first learn of the grievance, you act like a detective. You question witnesses and gather evidence to make sure there is a grievance.

Then comes a crucial decision. You need to decide exactly what claim you are going to make and how you will argue your case. To make the right decision, you have to know something about putting together an effective formal argument.

Usually when we talk about arguments, we are talking about those noisy discussions in which both sides get angry and nothing ever gets resolved. But when we talk about arguing your grievance, we are using the term as an attorney or arbitrator would. We are talking about a formal argument, not a disagreement.

Not every grievance goes to arbitration, but you should always prepare your argument as though it will be heard by an arbitrator. First, a well-prepared argument is more likely to convince management that your case is strong. Second, you never know which cases will end up in arbitration, so you should always be prepared.

What is a formal argument?

A formal argument is a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.

In preparing an argument for your grievance, you will do well to remember this definition. Note that the argument will be a "course of reasoning."

That means your argument will be based on logic, not emotion. It will be organized. And it will have a specific goal or target.

To be logical, your argument will rely on facts or statements put forth as evidence. That is why it is important to follow good investigative procedure when you collect facts.

Collect all the facts you can. You may not use them all, but the more you have, the more choices you have for creating a strong argument.

Likewise, do not ignore facts that don't support your position. The other side may use those facts in their case. You must be ready to rebut them.

The burden of proof

There are two sides to every argument: affirmative and negative. The affirmative position is the side which makes the "claim." The negative position is one of rebuttal, refuting the claims or evidence of the affirmative. The burden of proof always rests with the affirmative position.

The negative position always has the advantage in any argument. Making a claim and proving it is difficult; refuting the claim or some portion of the claim is far easier. For example, when a prosecutor claims that a criminal has committed a crime, he must show that the person was in a specific location at a specific time AND that he took some specific actions that were illegal.

The defense doesn't need to prove where their client was or what he was doing at the time the crime occurred. They just have to show that he wasn't at that specific location OR that he wasn't taking those specific actions.