The parties' positions are straightforward.  the Postal Service maintains that the grievance should be denied in its entirety because Article 16.2 precludes the Union from filing any grievance over a discussion.  The Union argues that the grievance does not concern the substance of the discussion, and thus Article 16.2 is inapplicable.

    The Union submitted three regional awards in support of its position.  In Case E98M-1E-C00240959 (MacLean) the arbitrator specifically held that Article 16.2's prohibition applied only to the merits of the discussion and not to procedural issues.  In his case, the grievance dealt with the issue of who can administer a discussion.

    While Article 12 deals with the Union's standing to file a grievance, Article 16.2 preclusion deals only with the subject matter of the grievance, namely the basis for the discussion.  Article 16.2 does not contain a specific waiver agreed to by the Union regarding the Postal Service's failure to adhere to contractual procedural requirements of a discussion.  In order to find that a party has contractually waived a right, such waiver must be clear and unambiguous.  I find no language in Article 16.2 to conclude that the Union has waived its right to file grievance over non-substantive issues surrounding s discussion.

    Under Article 15.1, a grievance is defined as "a dispute, difference, disagreement or complaint...[w]hich involves the interpretation, application of, or compliance with the provision of this Agreement or any local Memorandum of Understanding not in conflict with this Agreement".  I find that a genuine dispute is raised by the Union concerning the application of the instant relevant provisions, specifically whether the discussion occurred in private, whether the supervisor harassed the Grievant, as well as other procedural matters.  In agreement with Arbitrator MacLean, I cannot ignore the specific procedural language, to do so would in essence alter the contract which is beyond an arbitrator's authority.