The federal regulation 5 CFR § 9701 504 has an unambiguous definition of the constitutive elements of a formal grievance. In essence, it states that a grievance is any complaint by an employee concerning any matter relating to conditions of employment. It then goes on to enumerate other attributes that also establish a grievance by definition. What is most relevant is that this federal code is verbatim within Article 24 of the AFGE/SSA Agreement. However, what is, in contrast, is the agency’s interpretation of what constitutes a grievance. In Article 24 § 5 of the master agreement, it reads: “The written grievance must also identify the article(s), section(s), and provisions of the agreement that are involved, explain the alleged violation, and state the requested relief.” In other words, in contrast with federal regulation, the aforementioned master agreement has an additional prerequisite that a grievance must also be a breach of the agreement in order to be a valid grievance. Article 24 § 5 is in stark contravention of Article 24 § 2. Moreover, Article 24 § 2(d) enumerates issues proscribed from the grievance process and the absence of a contractual breach is not included in the exhaustive litany.

            The grievance process is designed not to protect the integrity of the collective bargaining agreement; it is meant to protect conditions of employment. SSA maladministration is a willful act intended to make the grievance process more difficult for bargaining unit employees to prevail. Additionally, even if a breach of contract was a prerequisite for filing a proper grievance, in accordance with Article 24 § 5 this requirement only takes effect at the last step (in most cases, step three of three). Irrespective of this, the agency has been summarily denying grievances for lack of adherence in steps one and two of the grievance process. While this in itself is a violation of the contract, it creates an additional breach by rendering the agency in breach of the requirement to resolve the grievance at the lowest level possible.

                    Within the very first paragraph of Article 24 § 5, it states in part: Every effort shall be made by the Administration and the Union to settle grievances at the lowest level possible. The agency’s understanding of this part of the section is dubious at best, considering the agency scarcely makes any kind of attempt to resolve grievances. In fact, a stronger argument can be made that the agency does everything it can to diminish the integrity of the grievance process. After all, why else would they unilaterally remove an entire paragraph from the preceding contract that explicitly stated:  If the grievance is still unclear after the grieving party has provided the above information required by the last step of the grievance process, management should seek clarification of the matter being grieved before rendering the decision. It would be egregiously remiss of this author not to point out that throughout this article both parties are identified as potential moving parties in the grievance process. However, this omitted section infers that only the agency would have any difficulty understanding what the grievance is about.

                    The material point is that the purpose of a contract is to eliminate any contentions predicated on ambiguity. However, in this instance, the agency is using ambiguity as a means for denying grievances. In the absence of the ability to sanction the agency with any meaningful consequence, the only viable alternative is to recognize what the agency’s expectations are, as ignominious as they may be. What this means is that when preparing a grievance, the 2048 grievance form (or its equivalent) must strictly adhere to the language of the contract regardless of the step.

                    The agency’s argument for stringently adhering to Article 24 § 5 throughout the grievance process is that sometimes grievances lack the specificity needed to understand what the aggrieved party is actually grieving. From examples given to the Union, it can be concluded that the agency by design is very coy in its interpretation of a grievance’s intent. In examples given to the Union what the agency deemed as defective grievances were easily identified and understood by the Union. Nevertheless, the purpose of a grievance is to obtain relief for the employee, and under present circumstances, the best way to do this is to conform to what the agency is seeking. At least until they change their disposition again.

                    This means even addressing the highly “esoteric” and perhaps indulgent term used in Article 24 § 5, the provision. In the 2012 contract, the requirement was to provide the article and section of the contract that was being violated. In the 2019 contract, the agency added the word provision. The problem with this is that the contract has no delineation of provisions. Moreover, if you were to ask a management official that would most likely be adjudicating a grievance what a provision is, you would get different answers. So what is a provision? According to the agency, it refers to long paragraphs that don’t necessarily have sections. The problem with this definition is that the language does not say “section or provision.” It clearly states that the written grievance must provide the article, section, and provision.

                    And this brings us to our foremost quandary: What is the written grievance? Just by reading the article thoroughly and understanding that only issues raised during the grievance can be used at arbitration, a fair supposition can be made that the written grievance must be the compilation of issues introduced during the entire grievance process that would be amalgamated into a final product resulting in the written grievance. If you are thinking this would be too logical of an expectation, you would be right! The agency’s tacit interpretation is any written document such as 2048 that is submitted for the purpose of alerting the receiving party that a grievance is being filed by the moving party. The problem with the agency’s interpretation of the written grievance is that it renders any subsequent oral or written presentation superfluous.

                    When confronted with this dilemma, the agency’s position essentially is that any oral or written presentation after the initial 2048 or equivalent should be supported by an addendum in order to ensure the issues raised would be included in the written grievance. If this made you reread Article 24 to find what you believe you must have missed; don’t bother, it’s not there. It’s the author’s opinion that keeping this information to themselves gives them a big advantage in prevailing in grievances—which may be dissonant when you consider the fact that throughout the grievance process, the agency is the only arbiter. The bottom line is that if you want even a modicum of a chance that you may succeed with your grievance, you will need to provide a comprehensive 2048 or equivalent with all of the issues clearly demarked by article, section, and provision (whatever this may be), and if you make subsequent arguments you will be better served to provide an addendum. Whether we agree with this or not, it is ultimately about getting relief for the employees we represent.