ÿWPCB& ½ÍŸ¡£¢kZ¥¢Ó:ˤ_žó˜¡ñâ °zä,®?Õ“#ÊOû¼çÆb¯ÅB‰þÈò†pRÏÅÜÃÑq¤¨ºÑÝ0ÊŰSØŠ” ÿ’ í*¬O»mv j¦×s‡N‡èOÇ\ÊL&9û¿?Y7âóx‡ ´ÂÊ”b E·… “g(\@C n†õúˆPæR®d$~Ýc›ØÒƒ&3S­ŸÕéУ6y³hD8zµÂ5ŸñSh÷túŒÞã• ¤tŸfo‹ñEŽaâ{;×(ü>ºQY¾ÖuëÛb”Vôt$A8Á¤ÖfÊ l>÷Ä ìRnªþ«b݇|ɰ¸Â?‚7®ÒŽ©ê71¤ ýœu‰x¿µ%«É£˜¯6«ÿlIér ¼8^4£!°œ€˜ƒ‹kù’÷N7% Ì.më¾GbImlñÐü {¸ÚŽÈŠeE=p‚ä,…\²R# Æ”ÇU òïˆÝrÎŒ’slñÇÞ¨‚'¢m Ø…º+·Ç€žþå”} z^˜ëÚ÷:Õ¢·ÛV}Å7Ê-báùÇmÐr,ÖXٕߎ@h™¢>œ2*!JÙT…muOLˆ+9°ì¨f§RA+ÎZ¾ÛøÒI.¶ºSQºâkYpnJK2d‡#!bUNƒ %Ñ 0F×N^ w(+4Sgv mxe —j¡ 0b U 2mjŸU 2 #U N;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;#;# 0b‰#‰#‰# D-ë#ë# A$ 0Kµ$Æ%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 0|Æ%˜Xerox DCS¦úÈÚÚȦú0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(iñ$¡¡Ó  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔO¦°,áÑDE E b–i+hƒ©ÔVª3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ   `Ý ƒqÿ)ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XÙ,XXXÔÔ‡ôf$õXXÙ,ÔÓ  ÓÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚÔ#†ôûõõõôf$I#ÔÝ‚†ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔ#†XtzXõôûõh#ÔÔ‡ÒNXXtzÔÔ‡î¹ ÒNÔÐ ° ÐÓ‡ÓÑ @ ÑÝ‚†ÿÿÿ΃ÝÝ  ÝÔ#†XÙ,X î¹ #ÔÔ#†XtzXXXÙ,+#ÔÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓ$ÜÜhìü!°œX$ÓÔ‡ÒNXXtzÔÔ‡î¹ ÒNÔÌÑ @ ÑÔ#†XÙ,X î¹#ÔÔ#†XtzXXXÙ,=#ÔÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡ÒNXXtzÔÔ‡î¹ ÒNÔÓ$ °(#ÿÿÜÜhìü!$Óðð€2002€American€Bar€AssociationÔ#†ÒN î¹ä#ÔÔ‡î¹ ÒNÔÔ#†XÙ,X î¹Å#ÔÔ‡î¹ XXÙ,Ôà‘(#àhttp://www.bnabooks.com/ababna/eeo/2002/richard„spencer.wpdÔ#†ÒN î¹l#ÔÔ#†XtzXÒN®#Ô(:3qÿ$©©Ý ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý%ä2¼A`Helvetica `Ý ƒqÿ)ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XÙ,XXXÔÔ‡ôf$õXXÙ,ÔÓ  ÓÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚÔ#†ôûõõõôf$I#ÔÝ‚†ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔ#†XtzXõôûõh#ÔÔ‡ÒNXXtzÔÔ‡î¹ ÒNÔÐ ° ÐÓ‡ÓÑ @ ÑÝ‚†ÿÿÿ΃ÝÝ  ÝÔ#†XÙ,X î¹ #ÔÔ#†XtzXXXÙ,+#ÔÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÓ$ÜÜhìü!°œX$ÓÔ‡ÒNXXtzÔÔ‡î¹ ÒNÔÌÑ @ ÑÔ#†XÙ,X î¹#ÔÔ#†XtzXXXÙ,=#ÔÑ @ ÑÓ  ÓÔ‡ÒNXXtzÔÔ‡î¹ ÒNÔÓ$ °(#ÿÿÜÜhìü!$Óðð€2002€American€Bar€AssociationÔ#†ÒN î¹ä#ÔÔ‡î¹ ÒNÔÔ#†XÙ,X î¹Å#ÔÔ‡î¹ XXÙ,Ôà‘(#àhttp://www.bnabooks.com/ababna/eeo/2002/richard„spencer.wpdÔ#†ÒN î¹l#ÔÔ#†XtzXÒN®#Ô%ä2¼A`Helvetica(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(:3qÿ$££Ý ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý)!ÈÈÈÈdxdxaZ`] I&mage <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó óLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Pÿÿ8page numberpage numberÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ ƒiñ!ÝÓ  ÓÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÔ‡î©CîXXÔÌÌÌÌÔ#†XtzXîî©C…#ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@±±ìàAmerican€Bar€Association€ˆÌà@à à ìàSection€of€Labor€and€Employment€LawˆÌà@  ìàEqual€Employment€Opportunity€CommitteeˆÌà@ìà2002€Midwinter€MeetingˆÌà@ìì"ìàMarch€20„23,€2002ˆÌà@' ' ìàHotel€Del€Coronado,€San€Diego,€CaliforniaˆÌÌÌÌÌÌà@c c ìàÔ‡RÅ`QXXtzÔò òAN€ARBITRAL€REVIEW€OF€RELIGIOUSˆÐ à0 Ðà@>>ìàAND€NATIONAL€ORIGIN€DISCRIMINATION€ISSUESó óÔ#†XtzXQRÅ`#ԈР,| ÐÌÌÌÌÌññññÖ€ÿÿÖññññÖ€ÿÿÖññññÌÌÌññÌÌÌññÌÌÌà@FF)ìàBY:ˆÌÌà@33 ìàJULIE€RICHARD„SPENCERˆÌÌÐ  L*œ%' Ðñ ñØØñ ñò òÓÓññÑ8€tzXXdìXXdì8ÑññI.à0  àINTRODUCTIONó óа(#(# Ðà  àFor€those€who€practice€in€the€labor€arena,€the€use€of€anti„discrimination€provisions€inÏcollective€bargaining€agreements€is€a€longstanding€practice.€€Most€collective€bargaining€agreementsÏcontain€provisions€which€specifically€protect€employees€from€discrimination€as€a€result€of€theirÏreligion€and€national€origin€as€well€as€other€anti„discrimination€protections.€€These€provisions€areÏintended€to€remove€from€the€workplace€discriminatory€acts€and€to€allow€contractual€protection€forÏbargaining€unit€employees€who€can€often€face€the€individual€prejudices€of€their€line€supervisors.€€Ìà  àOn€the€heels€of€the€September€11€tragedy,€these€provisions€are€certain€to€become€moreÏcontentious€in€the€workplace.€€The€purpose€of€this€paper€is€to€provide€a€brief€and€simple€review€ofÏthe€areas€where€the€anti„discrimination€provisions€related€to€religious€discrimination€and€nationalÏorigin€discrimination€have€been€considered€and€applied€in€arbitration.€€A€review€of€the€publishedÏarbitral€authority€on€these€issues€will€be€provided.€€Of€course,€this€is€not€to€suggest€that€these€are€theÏonly€arbitral€decisions€dealing€with€national€origin€or€religious€discrimination.€€In€fact,€these€provideÏa€sampling€of€issues€in€the€area.€€First,€the€paper€will€identify€arbitral€decisions€where€individualsÏwere€terminated€for€conduct€infractions€and€alleged€a€religious€or€ethnic€basis€for€their€conduct.€ÏSecond,€cases€of€contractual€dispute€dealing€with€religious€and/or€ethnic€discrimination€issues€willÏbe€discussed.€Ìò òÓÓII.à0  àTHE€USE€OF€DISCRIMINATION€PROVISIONS€OF€THE€COLLECTIVEÐ $X" ÐBARGAINING€AGREEMENT€AS€DEFENSES€TO€OTHERWISE€UNACCEPTABLEÏCONDUCT.€€ó óÐà%0!$(#(# ÐÌÓÓà  àIn€a€number€of€cases,€employees€have€contended€that€their€conduct,€while€otherwise€conductÏwhich€might€subject€them€to€discipline€and/or€discharge,€is€acceptable€because€of€their€religious€andÐ )à$( Ðethnic€convictions.€€In€these€cases,€arbitrators€have€often€given€employees€the€benefit€of€the€doubt.€ÏThe€approach€utilized€by€arbitrators€is€far€less€stringent€than€the€requirement€under€the€Civil€RightsÏAct.€€Nevertheless,€arbitrators€have€certainly€looked€to€federal€law€for€guidance€in€the€analysis€toÏapply€to€determine€the€appropriateness€of€the€employerððs€job€action.€€Arbitrators€follow€the€basisÏlegal€pattern€requiring€the€employee€to€demonstrate€a€sincerely€held€religious€conviction.€€ArbitratorsÏthen€look€to€whether€the€employer€has€considered€ð ðreasonable€accommodationsðð€and€to€whetherÏthose€accommodations€would€create€an€ð ðundue€hardshipðð€for€the€employer.€€While€employing€theÏsame€analysis,€arbitrators€seem€more€willing€to€reverse€discipline€than€€the€courts.€€ÌÓÓò òà  à1.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Lucky€Stores,€Inc.€(Gemco€Stores)€and€United€Food€and€CommercialÐ pÀ ÐWorkers,€Local€905óó,€88€LA€841€(Gentile,€1987).€€Ð\¬` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àThe€grievant€was€employed€in€the€food€market€section€of€a€Gemco€store€in€the€position€ofÏcashier.€€Approximately€three€years€after€her€employment,€California€commenced€a€statewide€lottery.€ÏGemco€received€permission€to€sell€lottery€tickets€and€began€to€require€its€cashiers€to€engage€in€theÏsale€of€tickets.€€The€grievant,€a€Jehovahððs€Witness€for€twelve€years,€reviewed€religious€articles€andÏthe€bible€seeking€religious€guidance€on€whether€she€could€sell€lottery€tickets.€€She€testified€thatÏselling€lottery€tickets€was€a€ð ðdirect€involvement€in€gamblingðð€and€contrary€to€her€ð ðGod€givenÏconscience.ðð€€The€grievant€was€discharged€by€her€store€manager€for€refusal€to€engage€in€assignedÏwork.€€(It€is€noteworthy€that€a€co„employee€of€the€grievant,€who€was€also€a€Jehovahððs€Witness,€spokeÏto€the€elders€of€his€congregation€and€determined€that€he€would€be€able€to€sell€lottery€tickets.)€€Ìà  àThe€arbitrator€rejected€the€argument€of€Gemco€that€the€grievantððs€decision€not€to€sell€lotteryÏtickets€was€a€ð ðpersonal€philosophical€choiceðð€rather€than€a€ð ðreligious€choice.ðð€€Despite€the€fact€thatÏa€co„employee€of€the€same€faith€had€reached€a€different€conclusion,€the€testimony€of€the€grievantÐ |*Ì%) Ðclearly€indicated€that€she€held€a€ð ðreligious€convictionðð€related€to€the€sale€of€lottery€tickets.€€TheÏarbitrator€noted€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€reliance€on€ð ðself€helpðð€in€refusing€to€sell€the€lottery€tickets€wasÏonly€acceptable€because€of€the€clear€religious€foundation€for€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€act.€€The€arbitrator€didÏcredit€Ô_ÔGemcoÔ_Ôððs€argument€that€her€actions€created€an€undue€hardship€for€the€store.€€80%€of€the€storeððsÏcustomers€purchased€lottery€tickets,€and€it€was€not€operationally€feasible€to€establish€a€ð ðno€lotteryÏticket€standðð€to€accommodate€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô.€€However,€the€arbitrator€noted€that€the€company€failedÏto€consider€whether€it€could€reasonably€accommodate€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€in€any€other€position€than€that€ofÏchecker€without€undue€hardship.€€Because€of€this€failure,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€reinstated€but€withoutÏback€pay€since€she€could€clearly€not€have€served€as€a€checker.€€ÌÓÓà  àò ò2.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Ô_ÔClallamÔ_Ô€County€Public€Hospital€District€No.€1,€Forks€CommunityÐ H˜ ÐHospital€and€United€Food€and€Commercial€Workers,€Local€381óó,€105€LA€609Ð 4„ Ð(Calhoun,€1995).€€Ð ` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àThe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€served€as€a€maintenance€employee€for€the€employer€since€1988.€€As€a€memberÏof€the€Worldwide€Church€of€God,€he€did€not€celebrate€Christmas.€€The€church€encourages€membersÏto€ask€to€be€excused€from€any€involvement€in€the€celebration€of€Christmas.€€Since€1988,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_ÔÏwas€forced€to€help€erect€a€Christmas€tree€for€the€employer€under€the€threat€of€discipline.€€InÏDecember€of€1993,€a€new€supervisor€asked€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€to€erect€the€Christmas€tree,€and€he€did.€€InÏ1994,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€realized€that€he€had€recourse€to€challenge€the€employerððs€requirement€that€heÏassist€in€erecting€the€Christmas€tree.€€At€that€time,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€told€his€supervisor€that€he€wished€toÏbe€excused€from€erecting€the€Christmas€tree€for€religious€convictions.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€met€with€HumanÏResource€and€reiterated€his€request€noting€that€everyone€knew€about€his€desire€not€to€celebrateÏChristmas.€€Human€Resource€indicated€an€intent€to€try€to€work€out€an€arrangement€to€avoid€theÐ )à$( Ðrequirement€that€he€erect€the€tree.€€The€next€day,€the€supervisor€ordered€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€to€put€up€theÏChristmas€tree,€and€he€refused.€€(A€co„employee€overheard€the€conversation€between€the€supervisorÏand€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€and€offered€to€assist€in€erecting€the€tree.)€€As€a€result€of€the€refusal€to€obey€the€order,Ïthe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€suspended.€€Ìà  àThe€arbitrator€held€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€desire€not€to€engage€in€Christmas€activity€was€clearlyÏreligiously€protected.€€The€arbitrator€rejected€the€employerððs€assertion€that€setting€up€the€Fir€tree€wasÏnot€a€celebration€of€Christmas,€and€he€determined€that€the€placement€of€a€Fir€tree€in€the€viewing€areaÏof€€visitors€and€employees€in€December€served€no€purpose€other€than€as€a€Christmas€tree€and€as€partÏof€the€celebration€of€Christmas.€€The€arbitrator€rejected€the€companyððs€position€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€hadÏengaged€in€such€conduct€until€1994€noting€that€the€employee€did€not€understand€that€he€had€aÏprotected€right€regarding€his€religious€belief€until€that€time.€€Coupled€with€documentation€from€theÏchurch,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€testimony€conclusively€established€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€held€a€sincere€religiousÏbelief€when€he€refused€to€set€up€the€tree.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€justified€in€refusing€the€order€becauseÏhe€believed€his€civil€rights€were€being€violated,€and€accommodating€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€would€provide€noÏundue€hardship€on€the€employer.€€The€employer€failed€to€demonstrate€that€any€reasonableÏaccommodation€was€made€for€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€when€he€announced€his€religious€objection€to€setting€upÏthe€tree.€€Suspension€of€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€revoked.€€€€ÌÓÓò òà  à3.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Bronx„Lebanon€Hospital€Center€and€Local€1199óó,€90€LA€1216€(Ô_ÔBabiskinÔ_Ô,Ð $X" Ð1988).€€ó óÐô$D #` (#` (# ÐÓÓà  àThe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€is€a€member€of€the€Roman€Catholic€faith.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€and€two€other€co„¼employees€submitted€timely€requests€to€have€Good€Friday€off.€€Although€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€request€wasÏinitially€approved,€the€decision€was€revoked€because€of€staffing€needs.€€On€Good€Friday,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_ÔÐ )à$( Ðdid€not€report€to€work.€€She€called€in€to€notify€management€she€would€not€report€to€work€andÏattended€Good€Friday€services€to€worship€with€her€family.€€Ìà  àThe€arbitrator€noted€the€extreme€arbitral€opposition€for€employees€to€engage€in€ð ðself€helpððÏby€disobeying€orders.€€The€arbitrator€held€that€the€order€for€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€to€work€on€Good€Friday€wasÏa€lawful€order.€€Although€Good€Friday€is€one€of€the€holiest€days€of€the€year€for€Roman€Catholics€andÏthe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€desire€to€worship€was€understandable,€the€arbitrator€noted€that€Good€Friday€is€not€aÏholy€day€of€obligation€in€the€Roman€Catholic€church.€€There€is€no€obligation€under€church€law€toÏattend€mass,€and€nothing€in€church€law€prohibits€an€employee€from€working€on€Good€Friday.€€TheÏarbitrator€determined€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€decision€to€attend€services€was€a€matter€of€ð ðreligiousÏpreferenceðð€as€opposed€to€ð ðreligious€obligation.ðð€€Nevertheless,€the€arbitrator€reduced€the€suspensionÏin€this€case€to€a€written€warning€because€of€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€prior€record.€€The€arbitrator€encouragedÏa€non€disciplinary€resolution€for€future€occasions€suggesting€the€possibility€of€the€employee€workingÏa€split€shift€taking€a€three€hour€break€to€attend€the€Good€Friday€services.€€ÌÓÓò òà  à4.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Public€Service€Company€of€New€Mexico€and€International€BrotherhoodÐ ¨ø Ðof€Electrical€Workers,€Local€611óó,€98€LA€23€(Ô_ÔSartainÔ_Ô,€1991).€€Ð”ä` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àThe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€in€this€case€is€a€15€Ô_Ô1/2Ô_Ô€year€employee€serving€as€a€maintenance€mechanic€forÏthe€company.€€The€company€engages€in€the€generation,€transmission,€and€distribution€of€electricalÏenergy€throughout€New€Mexico.€€On€March€1,€the€unit€where€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€worked€was€undergoingÏan€overhaul.€€At€approximately€noon€that€day,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€left€the€plant€without€any€contact€withÏmanagement.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€did€not€punch€out€and€did€not€communicate€with€any€co„employees.€€AtÏthe€end€of€the€shift,€management€realized€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€absent€and€became€alarmed€because€ofÏdanger€associated€with€the€work€area€where€he€had€been€performing€his€duties.€€When€the€companyÐ |*Ì%) Ðcould€not€locate€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô,€a€search€began€resulting€in€a€financial€expenditure€for€the€companyÏwhile€individuals€were€kept€on€overtime€to€conduct€the€search.€€Shortly€before€a€rescue€crew€wasÏsent€into€a€shaft€to€search€for€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô,€a€telephone€call€to€his€home€located€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô.€€TheÏcompany€terminated€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô.€€Ìà  àThe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€did€not€dispute€that€he€had€left€work€without€notification€to€the€employer.€ÏHowever,€he€asserted€that€he€had€experienced€significant€personal€problems€including€the€death€ofÏa€close€family€member€and€the€decision€of€he€and€his€wife€to€divorce.€€He€indicated€that€as€a€resultÏof€his€Navajo€background,€such€personal€matters€should€not€be€discussed€except€with€personsÏdesignated€by€the€Tribe€in€proper€ð ðceremonies.ðð€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€indicated€that€he€felt€an€obligation€notÏto€inform€anyone€else€or€to€let€his€personal€issues€spread€over€the€plant.€€The€arbitrator€noted€thatÏthe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€knew€that€leaving€constituted€a€serious€infraction.€€However,€the€arbitrator€consideredÏthe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€tribal€and/or€religious€beliefs€and€determined€that€it€was€reasonable€to€believe€that€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€thought€that€his€personal€troubles€were€not€for€ð ðnon„Navajo€ears.ðð€€Based€upon€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€long€service€and€the€evidence€of€his€Navajo€beliefs,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€reinstated€to€workÏwith€no€back€pay.€€ÌÓÓò òà  à5.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€City€Colleges€and€Cook€County€College€Teachers€Unionóó,€104€LA€86Ð X ¨ Ð(Eagle,€1995).Ð ` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àThe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€began€her€employment€with€the€City€College€in€1983.€€At€that€time,€she€signedÏa€memorandum€of€understanding€acknowledging€her€residency€in€the€City€of€Chicago.€€Annually,Ïshe€renewed€the€residency€form.€€In€1993,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€completed€the€form€indicating€that€she€noÏlonger€resided€in€the€city€but€now€resided€in€a€suburb€of€the€city.€€The€college€proposed€her€removalÏfor€violating€its€residency€requirement.€€At€hearing,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€indicated€that€she€was€a€JehovahððsÐ |*Ì%) ÐWitness€and€had€a€sincere€religious€belief€supported€by€biblical€text€that€she€must€reside€with€herÏhusband€who€now€lived€beyond€city€limits.€€The€college€discharged€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô,€and€the€matter€wentÏto€arbitration.€€Ìà  àAt€arbitration,€the€arbitrator€noted€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€submitted€no€evidence€that€the€BoardÏdiscriminated€against€her€because€of€her€sincerely€held€religious€beliefs.€€The€arbitrator€noted€anÏabsence€of€evidence€submitted€in€the€record€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€action€was€truly€based€on€her€religion.€ÏNo€evidence€was€presented€to€demonstrate€a€religious€obligation€requiring€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€husbandÏto€relocate€outside€of€Chicago.€€No€evidence€was€presented€regarding€the€tenets€of€her€religious€sect.€ÏWithout€evidence€demonstrating€that€the€move€was€necessitated€by€a€particular€religious€obligation,Ïthe€arbitrator€refused€to€speculate€as€to€whether€the€decision€was€a€ð ðreligious€necessityðð€or€ð ðreligiousÏpreference.ðð€€The€discharge€was€affirmed.€€ÌÓÓò òà  à6.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Ô_ÔBethlehamÔ_Ô€Structural€Products€Corporation€and€United€Steelworkers€ofÐ øH ÐAmerica,€Local€2599óó,€105€LA€205€(Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€1995).€€Ðä4` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àThe€Ô_ÔBethlehamÔ_Ô€case€presents€the€classic€example€of€religious€harassment€gone€disastrous€inÏthe€workplace.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€in€this€case€was€ð ðspiritually€rebornðð€and€began€to€voice€extremeÏopposition€to€the€use€of€foul€or€profane€language€in€the€workplace,€a€steel€mill.€€Over€the€course€ofÏa€number€of€years,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€seized€on€opportunities€for€the€use€of€ð ðmill€talkðð€to€respond€on€theÏradio€giving€praise€to€the€Lord,€condemning€employees€for€the€use€of€their€language,€commandingÏthem€to€stop€taking€the€Lordððs€name€in€vain,€and€invoking€God€against€them.€€The€co„employeesÏtook€no€effort€to€clean€up€their€language,€and€many€employees€developed€an€anger€and€hostilityÏtoward€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€because€of€his€personal€confrontation€about€their€lives€and€about€their€personalÏreligious€beliefs.€€Many€employees€filed€harassment€charges€against€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€himself€allegingÐ |*Ì%) Ðthat€he€engaged€in€religious€harassment€by€preaching€religion€constantly€over€the€PA€System.€€€TheÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€discharge€occurred€as€a€result€of€a€particularly€heated€dispute€existing€between€himselfÏand€the€individual€he€relieved€in€his€job.€€This€co„employee€frequently€used€obscene€and€profaneÏlanguage€in€the€workplace.€€On€numerous€occasions,€he€and€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€had€engaged€in€verbalÏaltercations€and€filed€complaints€against€each€other€for€their€respective€actions.€€In€1994,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_ÔÏheard€his€relief€again€using€obscene€language.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€got€on€the€PA€System€and€warned€hisÏco„employee€that€he€was€going€to€ð ðlearn€not€to€use€Godððs€name€in€vainðð€and€told€him€that€he€neededÏa€beating.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€relieved€his€co„employee€and€physically€attacked€him.€€HeÏpunched€him€multiple€times€and€began€to€wrestle€with€him€in€the€work€area.€€The€relieved€employeeÏtestified€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€had€threatened€him€before€he€arrived€to€relieve€him,€and€that€while€heÏattacked€him,€he€shouted€ð ðPraise€the€Lord.ðð€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€discharged€as€a€result€of€his€attack€ofÏhis€co„employee.€€à ¸ àThe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€contended€that€the€actions€occurred€as€a€result€of€the€companyððsÐ øH Ðrefusal€to€address€the€use€of€offensive€and€profane€language€in€the€workplace.€€The€arbitrator€rejectedÏthe€assertion€sustaining€the€discharge€and€finding€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€attack€had€been€physicallyÏunprovoked.€€The€arbitrator€did€note€that€the€co„employee€was€not€totally€innocent,€but€that€theÏevidence€was€clear€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€had€been€the€aggressor€in€the€fight.€€The€arbitrator€rejected€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€protests€regarding€the€language€used€in€the€workplace,€although€noting€that€the€offensiveÏlanguage€in€the€workplace€was€more€than€the€company€should€have€tolerated€under€its€own€rules.€ÏNevertheless,€the€arbitrator€noted€that€the€profane€language€was€spoken€generally€and€not€directedÏto€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô.€€While€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€viewed€the€language€as€religious€harassment,€everyone€in€theÏplant€was€subjected€to€the€language,€and€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€not€singled€out.€€There€was€an€absence€ofÐ )à$( Ðevidence€to€demonstrate€that€the€use€of€profane€language€was€intended€to€harass€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€becauseÏof€his€religious€beliefs.€ÌÓÓÌÌÌ€ò òà0  à7.à0` (#(#àòòIn€Re€Ô_ÔOoliteÔ_Ô€Industries,€Inc.€and€International€Brotherhood€of€Teamsters,€LocalÐ $ t Ð769óó,€77€LA€838€(Greene,€1981).€€Ð d` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àIn€this€case,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€discharged€for€insubordination€after€leaving€work€early€on€aÏFriday€in€order€to€prepare€for€the€Sabbath.€€The€company€engages€in€the€delivery€of€concrete€andÏcontends€that€Friday€is€its€busiest€day€of€the€week.€€During€the€probationary€period,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_ÔÏnever€went€home€before€quitting€time.€€However,€in€May€1981,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€left€work€early.€€WhenÏthe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€approached,€he€indicated€that€he€was€a€Hebrew€Israelite€and€was€required€to€beÏhome€before€sundown€on€Friday.€€He€subsequently€brought€a€letter€from€the€church€relating€to€hisÏobservance€of€the€Sabbath.€€However,€the€letter€did€not€provide€an€explanation€for€why€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_ÔÏhad€left€six€hours€before€sundown.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€indicated€that€he€had€to€run€errands€includingÏcashing€his€check,€paying€bills,€shopping,€and€preparing€the€Sabbath€meals.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€did€notÏindicate€that€his€faith€mandated€he€perform€those€tasks.€€One€week€later,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€again€left€workÏapproximately€five€hours€early€indicating€that€he€was€a€Hebrew€Israelite€and€had€to€prepare€for€theÏSabbath.€€The€company€discharged€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€for€insubordination.Ìà  àAt€arbitration,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€contended€that€he€was€a€Hebrew€Israelite€and€a€member€of€theÏTemple€of€Love€Hebrew€Israelite€Community.€€He€indicated€his€religious€need€to€leave€early€onÏFridays€in€order€to€keep€and€observe€the€Sabbath€which€extends€from€sundown€Friday€to€sundownÏSaturday.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€indicated€that€his€religion€required€that€he€take€the€prime€responsibility€forÐ ”)ä$( Ðpreparing€the€Sabbath€for€the€family.€€Additionally,€his€wife€has€an€irregular€menstrual€cycle€whichÏresulted€in€her€menstruating€unexpectedly€on€Fridays.€€During€Ô_ÔmentruationÔ_Ô,€she€was€prevented€fromÏperforming€any€pre„Sabbath€duties€because€she€was€considered€unclean€under€the€Doctrine€ofÏSeparation€which€prohibited€women€in€such€condition€from€cooking€for€others.€€Ìà  àWhile€the€arbitrator€noted€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€observance€of€the€Sabbath€from€sundown€Friday€toÏsundown€Saturday,€he€held€that€management€had€acted€reasonably€in€its€efforts€to€accommodate€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô.€€The€company€had€offered€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€to€pay€him€on€Thursdays€in€order€to€minimize€theÏerrands€which€needed€to€perform€before€the€Sabbath€began€on€Friday€evening.€€Additionally,€anÏofficer€of€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€temple€testified€that€she€traditionally€cashes€her€husbandððs€checks€and€cooksÏand€puts€her€house€in€order€on€Fridays€to€prepare€for€the€Sabbath.€€The€arbitrator€held€that€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€failed€to€meet€his€burden€that€he€had€assisted€the€company€in€reasonably€accommodatingÏhim.€€Further,€the€arbitrator€found€that€an€undue€hardship€would€result€if€the€company€allowed€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€to€leave€as€much€as€five€hours€before€sunset€on€any€given€Friday.€€Friday€was€the€busiestÏday€for€the€employer€and€contained€the€greatest€volume€of€its€business.€€Allowing€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€toÏleave€early€would€interfere€with€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€delivery€schedules€and€might€result€in€the€loss€ofÏcustomers.€€The€discharge€action€was€sustained.€€ÌÓÓò òà  à8.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Alameda„Contra€Costa€Transit€District€and€Ô_ÔATUÔ_Ô,€Local€192óó,€75€LA€1273Ð 0"€  Ð(Randall,€1980).€€Ð ` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àThe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€hired€as€a€bus€driver€in€1977.€€She€was€ultimately€discharged€for€failing€toÏcomply€with€the€districtððs€uniform€requirements€by€wearing€a€turban€for€religious€reasons.€€TheÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€is€a€member€of€the€Islamic€faith€and€testified€that€she€believed€her€religion€required€her€toÏcover€all€of€her€hair€when€she€was€in€public.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€indicated€that€at€varying€times,€herÐ |*Ì%) Ðreligious€beliefs€have€varied€in€strength.€€However,€she€indicated€that€since€attending€a€religiousÏorientation€class€in€the€Spring€1978,€she€had€a€very€clear€understanding€and€affirmation€that€her€faithÏrequired€her€head€to€be€covered.€€She€began€wearing€a€turban€while€driving,€and€after€a€series€ofÏwarnings,€was€suspended€and€terminated€for€this€action.€€Ìà  àThe€arbitrator€began€the€analysis€by€noting€that€the€districtððs€prohibition€against€non„¼conforming€head€coverings€is€reasonable€and€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€departure€from€the€normal€headÏwear€was€substantial.€€The€arbitrator€found€it€unnecessary€to€look€to€whether€the€district€mustÏaccommodate€a€sincerely€held€religious€belief€determining€that€the€belief€of€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€notÏsincerely€held€in€this€case.€€The€arbitrator€found€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€commitment€to€her€Islamic€faithÏwas€not€subject€to€evaluation.€€Instead,€she€must€consider€her€commitment€to€the€belief€that€she€mustÏhave€her€hair€covered€with€a€head€wrap€whenever€she€is€in€public.€€Noting€that€conduct€contrary€toÏthe€belief€could€serve€as€evidence€that€the€belief€was€not€sincerely€held,€the€arbitrator€held€that€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€had€appeared€in€public€without€her€head€covered€since€Spring€1978.€€Six€witnesses€testifiedÏto€personal€observation€of€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€since€that€time€without€a€head€covering.€€Additionally,€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€head€covering€at€both€her€unemployment€hearings€and€at€the€arbitration€hearing€itselfÏfailed€to€meet€the€standards€which€she€herself€indicated€were€mandated€by€her€religious€convictions.€ÏThe€arbitrator€determined€that€the€belief€that€her€religion€required€her€head€to€be€completely€coveredÏwas€not€sincere€and€affirmed€the€discharge.€€Ìà  àArbitrators€have€been€hesitant€to€reinstate€employees€based€upon€the€requirements€of€wearingÏreligious€articles€of€clothing.€€In€òòColt€Industries,€Trent€Tube€Division€and€Steelworkers,€Local€7261óó,Ð ¸'#& Ð71€LA€22€(Rutherford,€1978),€the€arbitrator€sustained€the€discharge€of€an€employee€for€wearing€aÐ )à$( Ðdress€with€long€socks€instead€of€the€required€safety€slacks€even€where€the€church€prohibited€womenÏfrom€wearing€pants€because€the€past€history€of€leg€injuries€rendered€the€employerððs€work€rule€forÏsafety€pants€reasonable.€€ÌÌÌÓÓò òIII.ó óà0  àò òCONTRACTUAL€ISSUES€IN€ARBITRATION€RELATED€TO€DISCRIMINATIONÐ è 8  ÐBASED€ON€RELIGION€OR€NATIONAL€ORIGIN.€ó ó€ÐÔ$ (#(# ÐÌò òà  à1.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Motion€Picture€and€Television€Fund€and€Hospital€and€Service€EmployeesÐ °  ÐUnion,€Local€399óó,€103€LA€988€(Gentile,€1994).€€Ðœì ` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àThe€Motion€and€Television€Fund€operates€a€convalescent€and€retirement€home€in€California.€Ï€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€is€employed€by€the€Fund€with€operator€and€receptionist€responsibilities.€€In€1994,€aÏsupervisor€became€aware€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€wearing€nose€jewelry,€namely€a€small€silver€hoop€inÏher€left€nostril.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€informed€she€could€not€wear€the€jewelry€at€work€other€than€atÏbreaks€and€in€lunch€periods.€€They€worked€out€an€accommodation€allowing€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€to€wear€aÏbandage€€over€the€hoop€while€working.€€Nevertheless,€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€filed€a€grievance€questioning€theÏpropriety€of€the€fundððs€prohibition€of€nose€jewelry.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€indicated€that€she€attended€schoolÏand€took€courses€in€Chicano€studies€sparking€an€interest€in€her€cultural€roots.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€anÏAmerican€of€Mexican€decent.€€Her€studies€led€her€to€the€Mayan€Civilization,€and€she€discovered€thatÏnose€ornaments€were€worn€by€certain€Mayan€gods.€€This€discovery€triggered€an€interest€in€wearingÏnose€jewelry€as€a€self€expression€of€her€cultural€heritage€and€connection€to€the€Mayan€Civilization.€ÏThe€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€did€provide€information€to€management€related€to€her€cultural€basis€for€wearing€theÏnose€ornament€but€she€contends€that€her€supervisorððs€persistence€in€demanding€the€culturalÐ ”)ä$( Ðinformation€was€Ô_ÔharassiveÔ_Ô.€€Ìà  àThe€arbitrator€recognized€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€cultural€history€and€noted€that€the€wearing€of€noseÏornaments€appeared€to€be€part€of€the€Mayan€culture.€€However,€the€arbitrator€noted€that€the€Fund€hadÏa€reasonable€basis€for€establishing€rules€of€conduct€including€rules€of€dress.€€The€arbitrator€noted€thatÏconsiderable€deference€would€be€granted€to€managementððs€interpretation€of€its€application€of€dressÏand€grooming€standards.€€The€arbitrator€concluded€that€the€jewelry€standard€was€not€unreasonable,Ïand€the€application€of€that€standard€was€not€unreasonable€in€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ôððs€case.€€€ÌÓÓò òà  à2.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Cleveland€Public€Library€and€Service€Employees€International€Union,Ð ˜è  ÐDistrict€925óó,€105€LA€781€(Smith,€1995).€€Ð„Ô ` (#` (# Ðó óÌÓÓà  àThe€Cleveland€Public€Library,€the€third€largest€public€research€library€in€the€United€States,Ïhas€twenty€eight€facilities.€€The€grievance€concerned€the€mandatory€assignments€for€Sunday€hoursÏin€the€history€department€of€the€library.€€Prior€to€the€current€collective€bargaining€agreement,€staffÏfilled€Sunday€slots€at€the€main€library€from€throughout€the€system€relying€on€volunteers€and€thenÏmandating€work€if€insufficient€volunteers€were€obtained.€€€The€agreement€allowed€individuals€toÏwork€in€areas€outside€of€their€familiarity€creating€a€number€of€service€related€problems€for€theÏlibrary.€€During€the€1994€negotiations,€the€issue€was€addressed,€and€a€tentative€agreement€wasÏreached€to€use€only€qualified€librarians€to€staff€Sunday€slots.€€ð ðQualified€librariansðð€were€defined€toÏmean€individuals€with€at€least€six€months€of€experience€during€the€last€ten€years€in€the€departmentÏor€agency.€€Qualified€non€bargaining€unit€professionals€who€had€not€volunteered€were€to€beÏmandated€to€work€unfilled€slots€before€qualified€bargaining€unit€professionals.€€The€historyÏdepartment€at€the€main€library€has€four€professional€librarians,€three€of€whom€are€in€the€bargainingÏunit.€€All€meet€the€standard€as€qualified€under€the€agreement.€€The€Fall€Sunday€schedule€mandatedÐ |*Ì%) ÐÔ_ÔSundays€be€divided€equally€among€three€librarians.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€librarian€proposed€substitutes€forÏhis€Sundays,€but€they€were€rejected€as€unqualified.€€However,€another€librarian€in€the€departmentÏsought€to€be€excused€from€Sunday€hours€for€a€religious€accommodation.€€The€library€verified€hisÏsincerely€held€religious€beliefs€from€his€pastor,€and€the€individual€was€removed€from€the€mandatoryÏrotation€pool.€€The€end€result€was€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€was€assigned€to€work€two€additional€SundaysÏbecause€of€the€removal€of€the€bargaining€unit€employee€for€religious€accommodation.€€The€Ô_ÔgrievantÔ_ÔÏcomplained€alleging€that€the€honoring€of€the€religious€conviction€violated€the€collective€bargainingÏagreement.€Ìà  àThe€arbitrator€determined€that€while€no€language€in€the€agreement€requires€that€all€qualifiedÏemployees€be€placed€in€the€pool,€it€necessarily€will€result€in€individuals€being€forced€to€work€moreÏSundays€if€some€qualified€employees€are€excluded€from€the€pool.€€Since€the€library€is€obligated€toÏuse€its€ð ðbest€effortsðð€to€avoid€forcing€employees€to€ð ðwork€more€Sundays€than€necessary,ðð€the€libraryÏcannot€meet€its€burden€if€it€excludes€qualified€employees.€€The€parties€intent€was€that€the€burden€ofÏundesirable€Sunday€work€be€shared€by€all.€€The€arbitrator€rejected€the€libraryððs€argument€that€theÏprocess€of€providing€a€religious€accommodation€qualified€as€a€binding€past€practice.€€The€arbitratorÏsimilarly€rejected€the€libraryððs€contention€that€its€refusal€to€grant€the€accommodation€would€be€aÏviolation€of€federal€law.€€The€arbitrator€noted,€instead,€that€to€honor€the€request€would€result€in€anÏundue€hardship€to€the€library€to€either€violate€the€collective€bargaining€agreement€or€reduce€itsÏservices€to€accommodate€Sunday€objectors.€€The€arbitrator€found€that€the€requirement€that€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantÔ_Ô€be€forced€to€work€additional€Sundays€so€as€to€allow€an€individual€to€be€religiouslyÏaccommodated€violated€the€collective€bargaining€agreement.€€€€Ð )à$( ÐÓÓà  àò ò3.à0 ` àòòIn€Re€Denver€Public€Schools€and€Denver€Classroom€Teacherððs€Associationóó,€98Ð ° ÐLA€1163€(Ô_ÔHogerÔ_Ô,€1992).ó óМì` (#` (# ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€dispute€in€this€case€involves€the€religious€leave€provisions€of€the€partiesðð€contracts.€€AÏnumber€of€grievances€were€consolidated€for€the€hearing€alleging€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantsÔ_Ô€in€each€caseÏrequested€a€paid€religious€leave,€and€that€the€district€denied€the€requests.€€Each€of€the€Ô_ÔgrievantsÔ_Ô€wereÏof€Christian€orientation€and€testified€with€regard€to€leave€requested€surrounding€the€Easter€holidays.€ÏThese€problems€arose€as€a€result€of€a€change€in€the€Spring€vacation€time€in€the€school€district€whichÏno€longer€patterned€the€Easter€holiday€season.€€The€district€contended€that€the€language€in€theÏcontract€was€initially€implemented€to€allow€the€Jewish€people€to€take€off€since€services€were€notÏavailable€outside€of€normal€work€hours.€€The€district€contended€that€the€holidays€sought€by€theÏÔ_ÔgrievantsÔ_Ô€in€this€case€were€not€holidays€on€which€the€attendance€at€religious€services€was€mandatedÏor€which€could€not€be€attended€outside€of€normal€working€hours.€€Ìà  àWhile€the€arbitrator€found€that€the€Ô_ÔgrievantsÔ_Ô€who€testified€were€credible€and€sincere€witnessesÏwhose€religious€beliefs€were€without€question,€the€arbitrator€found€that€the€elimination€of€theÏdistrictððs€discretion€to€determine€whether€religious€leave€should€be€granted€would€render€it€unableÏto€separate€€genuine€claims€from€spurious€ones.€€The€arbitrator€found€that€if€the€meaning€ofÏð ðreligious€holidayðð€in€the€agreement€is€ambiguous,€negotiation€history€should€be€reviewed.€€He€notedÏthat€the€history€of€the€language€served€to€protect€Jewish€teachers€from€wage€loss€when€they€attendedÏobligatory€religious€rituals€during€teaching€hours.€€Christians€were€not€forced€to€miss€scheduledÏclasses€and€had€the€option€to€attend€services€at€other€times.€€The€arbitrator€held€that€the€AssociationÏoffered€insufficient€proof€that€this€interpretation€of€the€contract€language€should€be€disregarded,€andÏheld€that€the€district€had€demonstrated€that€its€practice€comported€with€the€original€purpose€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðreligious€leave€provision.€€The€arbitrator€found€that€if€the€union€wished€to€change€the€scope€of€theÏagreement,€its€remedy€was€in€negotiation,€not€arbitration.€€Ìò òIV.à0  àCONCLUSIONó óÐ`°(#(# Ðà  àAs€demonstrated€from€a€simple€review€of€the€body€of€arbitral€authority,€issues€haveÏfrequently€arisen€in€the€workplace€dealing€with€religious€and/or€national€origin€discrimination.€ÏBecause€these€issues€are€those€which€are€central€to€our€identity,€it€is€certain€that€these€issues€willÏcontinue€to€exist.€€Furthermore,€in€the€aftermath€of€the€September€11€tragedy,€it€is€certain€that€theseÏissues€will€arise€with€even€greater€frequency.€€Unions€will€be€compelled€to€balance€the€interest€ofÏall€of€its€membership€in€order€to€determine€whether€individual€actions€of€employers€constituteÏactions€of€discrimination€or€actions€to€protect€the€workplace.€€Additionally,€unions€will€certainly€beÏconfronted€with€decisions€as€to€whether€to€arbitrate€cases€of€religious€or€ethnic€minorities€which€willÏbe€largely€unpopular€among€the€membership€as€a€whole.€€In€any€event,€unions€can€expect€to€see€anÏincrease€in€the€number€of€religious€and€national€origin€discrimination€and€harassment€allegations€inÏthe€post€September€11€workplace.€ÌÌÔ€^?h _XXtzÔñ ñÔ.†ƒ vC:\Jobs\bna\BNA WEBSITE\2002 Papers\eeo\richard-spencer.wpd†ÔC:\Jobs\bna\BNA€WEBSITE\2002€Papers\eeo\richard-spencer.wpdÔ/  Ôñ ñ