Comments on: “Short Circuits” on transit police arbitration

By: JC

JC — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:44:09 +0000

“Altercated”?

By: Marnie Tunay

Marnie Tunay — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:15:27 +0000

Thanks for the referral to Short Circuit. I’ve subscribed and I’m going to pass it on.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:35:44 +0000

The summary is flip and omits complication, but I wouldn’t call it “entirely misleading.” The court upheld WMATA’s position that it had acted lawfully on the issue under challenge. It wasn’t called on to resolve whether other avenues of recourse might have succeeded for the officers, or might succeed in the future.

By: Allan

Allan — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:16:00 +0000

Mr. Olson,

I don’t think that the 4th Circuit said that what the employer did was cool. It did not rule on the merits. Instead, it found that the subsequent termination did not violate the initial arbitrator’s order to reinstate the officers. Consequently, it found that the proper course of action was to file a grievance.

This was a procedural loss for the employees. I think that they are unable to continue the grievance process regarding the second termination, so they are SOL.

I should point out that the part of the posting I take issue with is a quotation from another source, not you. I would change your description of the newsletter to read: condensed (and sometimes acidulous) (and sometimes entirely misleading) summaries