Grievance Handling -- How to interpret contract language

Does the Contract Mention the Issue Specifically?

If the contract never mentions the issue of your grievance at all, then you obviously have to find some other support for the grievance. If the issue is mentioned, read that section of the contract carefully to see if the issue is specifically mentioned and the language is clear and unambiguous.

For example, look at this language:

"Section 1: Management shall continue to make reasonable provisions for the safety and health of employees."

This language mentions the company's responsibility for safety and health, but leaves a lot of room for interpretation. You might not say it is unclear, but it certainly leaves a lot of room for different interpretations. Key words in this language are "continue to make" and "reasonable provisions."

Let's say that the company decides to stop supplying the work gloves it has supplied in the past. Obviously, they are not "continuing" to make provisions, so that specific word may support a grievance. On the other hand, you would probably not be able to use this section to force the company to begin distributing safety equipment that they have not distributed in the past.

This section also contains a dangerous hedge word: "reasonable." Supplying safety goggles might seem like a "reasonable" provision to you, but the company may be able to successfully argue that it is unreasonable to expect them to provide such personal items.

Let's add another section to that contract.

"Section 2: Wearing apparel to properly protect employees from injury shall be provided by management in accordance with practices now prevailing or as such practices may be improved from time to time."

The language here is much more specific. When one part of a contract is general or vague and another is specific, the more specific part applies. Work gloves would definitely fall under "wearing apparel;" safety goggles might not.

The phrase "in accordance with practices now prevailing" is more specific than "continue to make," while the phrase "or as such practices may be improved" allows the company to change the policy by improving it. If providing the safety goggles was the "prevailing" practice when the contract was signed, the company can only change that policy by doing something better.

Of course, we don't always agree on how a practice "may be improved." If the company can save money by offering cheaper gloves, they'll call that an improvement because it improves their bottom line. What happens if your members don't like the new gloves? Do you have a grievance? How would you argue your case?

Another point to remember is that when the contract mentions one item, but fails to mention another similar item, the contract is usually interpreted to mean that the unmentioned items were intended to be excluded. In the example above, the language mentions "wearing apparel." Would you interpret that to mean work boots? What about safety glasses?