28
REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION AND DECISION OF ARBITRATION BOARD DID THE COMPANY VIOLATE THE AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1952 WHEN IT INVOKED SECTION 205.14 THEREOF TO RE~ECT THE BID OF -, Y _ .. FOR APPOINTMENT AS ApPRENTICE SERVICEMAN'? THE COMPANY IS OBLIGATED (1) TO POST NOTICE OF VACANCIES IN PUBLIC CONTACT, SUPERVISORY, AND TECHNICAL ~OBS, (2) TO FILL THEM ON BASIS OF SENIORITY, (3) TO GIVE TIMELY WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO UNION WHEN aID OF A SENIOR EMPLOYEE IS BY-PASSED, AND (4) TO FOLLOW THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE WHEN INVOKED BY THE SENIOR EMPLOYEE. - SECTION 205.11 ESTABLISHES CRITERIA AS GENERAL QUALI- FICATIONS WHICH MUST BE MET BY A BIDDER FOR ~ ~OB, AND SECT. 205.14 PROVIDES "ABILITY AND PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS" AS ADDITIONAL CRITERIA TO BE MET BY A BIDDER ON THE 3 CLASSES Of vOBS THEREIN LiSTED. IT IS OBLIGATED TO POST NOTICE OF VACANCIES AND "CONSIDER" SIDS SUBMITTED FOR ANY OF THE 3 CLASSES or ~OB8 SPECIFIED IN SECTION 205.14 BUT CONSIDERS OBLIGATION FULLY DISCHARGED IF vOB IS POSTED AND BIDS REVIEWED. - SENIORITY IS NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR fN MAKING APPOINT- MENTS TO ANY OF THE 3 CLASSES OF vOBS AND IT MAY NOT ONLY RE~ECT BIDS or UNQUALIFIED SENIOR BIDDERS BUT MAY SELECT THE EMPLOYEE IT DEEMS BEST SUITED AND HAS UNLIMITED DIS- CRETION IN MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO SUCH A vOB. - THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE DOES NOT ENLARGE ON ANY SUB- STANTIVE RIGHT OR GRANT ANY RIGHT WHERE NONE EXiST OTHERWISE AND THE ONLY GRIEVANCE AVAILABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE UNDER SECT. 205.14 IS (1) WHETHER THE ~OB IN QUESTION IS ONE OF THE 3 MENTIONED IN SECT. 205.14, (2) WHETHER THE COMPANY CONSIDERED THE BID SUBMITTED, (3) WHETHER APPOINTMENT WAS MADE ON BASIS OF liABILITY AND PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS."

ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48ARBITRATION CASE #6

DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB.

OPINION AND DECISION OF ARBITRATION BOARD

DID THE COMPANY VIOLATE THE AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1952WHEN IT INVOKED SECTION 205.14 THEREOF TO RE~ECT THE BIDOF -, Y _ .. FOR APPOINTMENT AS ApPRENTICE SERVICEMAN'?

THE COMPANY IS OBLIGATED (1) TO POST NOTICE OF VACANCIESIN PUBLIC CONTACT, SUPERVISORY, AND TECHNICAL ~OBS, (2)TO FILL THEM ON BASIS OF SENIORITY, (3) TO GIVE TIMELYWRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO UNION WHEN aID OF A SENIOR EMPLOYEEIS BY-PASSED, AND (4) TO FOLLOW THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDUREWHEN INVOKED BY THE SENIOR EMPLOYEE.

- SECTION 205.11 ESTABLISHES CRITERIA AS GENERAL QUALI-FICATIONS WHICH MUST BE MET BY A BIDDER FOR ~ ~OB, ANDSECT. 205.14 PROVIDES "ABILITY AND PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS"AS ADDITIONAL CRITERIA TO BE MET BY A BIDDER ON THE 3CLASSES Of vOBS THEREIN LiSTED.

IT IS OBLIGATED TO POST NOTICE OF VACANCIES AND "CONSIDER"SIDS SUBMITTED FOR ANY OF THE 3 CLASSES or ~OB8 SPECIFIEDIN SECTION 205.14 BUT CONSIDERS OBLIGATION FULLY DISCHARGEDIF vOB IS POSTED AND BIDS REVIEWED.

- SENIORITY IS NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR fN MAKING APPOINT-MENTS TO ANY OF THE 3 CLASSES OF vOBS AND IT MAY NOT ONLYRE~ECT BIDS or UNQUALIFIED SENIOR BIDDERS BUT MAY SELECTTHE EMPLOYEE IT DEEMS BEST SUITED AND HAS UNLIMITED DIS-CRETION IN MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO SUCH A vOB.

- THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE DOES NOT ENLARGE ON ANY SUB-STANTIVE RIGHT OR GRANT ANY RIGHT WHERE NONE EXiST OTHERWISEAND THE ONLY GRIEVANCE AVAILABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE UNDERSECT. 205.14 IS (1) WHETHER THE ~OB IN QUESTION IS ONE OFTHE 3 MENTIONED IN SECT. 205.14, (2) WHETHER THE COMPANYCONSIDERED THE BID SUBMITTED, (3) WHETHER APPOINTMENT WASMADE ON BASIS OF liABILITY AND PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS."

Page 2: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

THE COMPANY HAS NOT FULF'ILLED ITS OBLIGATION IN "CONSIDER-ING" THE BID OF' A OUALIF'IED BIDDER ENTITLED TO PREFERENCEUNDER SECT. 205.1 AND SECT. 205.7 UNLESS ITS "CONSIDERATION"OF' HIS BID PRODUCES AN OF'FER OF' APPOINTMENT. AN APPOINT-MENT MAY NOT BE GIVEN TO A .JUNIOR BIDDER ·WITH "ABILITY ANDPERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS" NO BETTER THEN OR INFERIOR TOTHOSE OF' THE SENIOR BIDDER.

- THE SUBSTANTIAL PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENT ARE SUS-CEPTIBLE TO AN INTERPRETATION UNDER THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.

- SECT. 205.14, WITH RESPECT TO THE .JOB VACANCIES SUB.JEOTTO ITS PROVISIONS, DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE COMPANY ANUNLIMITED DISCRETION IN MAKING APPOINTMENTS, AS DOESSECT. 205.13 WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF' SAID SECTION ARE MET,NEITHER DOES THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 205.14REPRESENT A MERE ADDENDUM TO SECTION 205.11.- SEC. 205.15 IS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED TO APPOINTMENTSPERMITTED ONLY UNDER SECT. 205.14 (NOTE: THIS MEANS THECOMPANY IS NOT ·OBLIGATED TO NOTIFY UNION or A BY-PASSWHEN SECT. 205.'1 HAS BEEN JNVOKED. WHETHER COMPANY WILLCEASE THEIR PAST PRACTICE IN THIS RESPECT IS UNCERTAIN.)

- SECT. 205.14 DOES LIMIT THE SENIORITY RIGHTS OF BIDDERSON A PUBLIC CONTACT .JOB, NOT ONLY BY AUTHORIZING THECOMPANY TO REJECT THE BID OF AN EMPLOYEE LACKING THENECESSARY ABILITY AND PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS, BUT AUTHOR-IZING IT TO ALSO APPOINT, F'ROM AMONG THOSE SO QUALIFIED,AN EMPLOYEE WHO DEMONSTRABLY POSSESSES "ABILITY AND PERSONALQUALlnCATIONS" SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF' ANY BIDDER WHO MAYBE SENIOR TO HIM.

- WHILE THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF' PROVING A VIOLATION OF' THEAGREEMENT RESTED WITH THE UNION THE BURDEN OF GOING fORWARDWITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPOINTMENT WASMADE ON THE BASIS Of ABILITY AND PERSONAL QUALifICATIONSFELL ON THE COMPANY.

- UPON THE LIMITED PROOF MADE THE BOARD IS UNABLE TO FINDTHAT THE AGGRIEVED LACKED THE REQUISITE ABILITY AND PERSONALQUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OR THAT THE EMPLOYEE AWARDEDTHE .JOB POSSESSEP THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THESE RESPECTSSUPERIOR TO THOSE OF' THE AGGRIEVED.

Or""lI. ~U! " .•. ,...~ JJ. OA11't;.y'~ •• V"~I.,;" 7r v-r

ARBITRATION #6

Page 3: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMPANY PID VIOLATE THE AGREEMENT orSEPTEMBER 1,1952 WHEN IT INVOKED SECT. 205.14 TO RE~ECTTHE BID OF • Y rOR APPOINTMENT AS ApPRENTICESERVICEMAN AND THAT. Y {SHOULD HAVE BEENAPPOINTED TO THIS ~OB. THAT IS OUR AWARD.

WE CONCUR WE DISSENT

/s/ ARTHUR C. MILLER, CHAIRMAN /S/ R. J. T IL SON

/s/ ELMER B. BUSHBY /s/ T. U. ADAMS/s/ JOHN M. LAPPIN, JR,

NOTE: THIS REPRESENTS MERELY A DIGEST or THE AWARD.FOR rULL CONTEXT or AWARD SEE ARBITRATION CASE#6 IN OrrlCE FILE.

REVIEW CASE #84AR 8 I T R A 11 0 N #6

Page 4: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

PACIFIC GAS All) ILICfBIC COJIPAI!

All)

Ift_11'IOKAL UODIIIIOOD 0'1 a.JC!BICALVOIIIBILOCALKO. J.2.It.5

i

Page 5: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

,..O)aArt.lvaUoA e- 10. 6)

,lCIPIC GASAlDILICfRIC CODAI!' aAC1 LOCAL OlIO. '0. U'ts

of Ift_A!XOI'U, BJl)!'JJUBOODor -..etUCAL .IOU. A.r .L., aN

iJaa..,... owr u-to1l8V1rac •••• u.oa art••.••aiel' blrOU' •••at.u.eu.w .,., ••••., ..,..••• ,.

-1)14'••••• fte1a •••• ~, .t,••' ••••. l,'l'Ja •• 'lt,',...••••~I0'.l ••'~ to,.,.J.et ',.1410'1' _ '!~_J'>.".,1Jt~'i •••••••••1IIJm •••••• t.. ".' ..' .'..', ,.,}.• ,. .

.,' ,.. .' "~,,., 'i',';"','7."

.\ ••,.t.vu ftIU1ar1l,",-.lIId.' •• pur__ ' '- • m.••••••• ma •••.••••, to • tift"·n loaN of Ubi 'l!_t1on 41a1l

eouti.tect"'r leot1on 102.12 o~t;be"cou..u..........t.file p&rts. •• 8" Marl at tM •• hal101.eo om... .t the

eo.,.,. •••• ' 23, 1,"S. an••••• lMtthore1 •• __ a'-7

••.•.•" ••l••••• -. 4U,.•• pH oraU7.!'bereane. _till

panle. r.ue,.,.tteaW1eh en ••••• 1' a6.1'JS.· •••••tM a..,..,•. vu •••••••a·.-3 1,-*","1"'. . )

" ," " ,ll' ..,"," , .•..' .......... . '. '.','" :: '. .

1I•••••••••• u-.' ~.".{_Nlta~ .- ••• "' ••1V

tf.a4· •••••••• ,.now., ' , , , ',':, ~r: ,", -. .

Page 6: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

!hi. Mction, howftr,l. lNt ODeot .1p.tHD. ooilprl.sac

tlU. 205ot the. AcNeMDt, • __ • -Job tiM'''' an4 Pro_tiOD-,

vb1eh to.etatl' purport to deal ooap""ulftlT D4 111detaU

with tbi •• mJ••". aertaia ot the ••• Uoa • ..-tel •• 1ow, .is.,"otto •• 205'.1. 1OS.11, 201.1"', 205.1J aD420,..16. c_ ute tbe

AcNe-t .baltaMOU.17 111 1""" as a procluet ot _lOtiationaOftI' a WarLabor !iou. Or"1' aD.4haT. nrrtft4 1Jl \be tRU"Nat

J.pe••• tVltbov.tutena1 ••••• hoa•• o"lpaa1... ltD.••

••• •• ·.ther •• ott •••• t ~.1!1u.e "'Ho1te4 111. ea-nt altrler N_' of 1t. pronal.u 11 "1.~aa.tto the 1a_. pN••nted.

tile lueral pJ1,aolpl •• ot t1IetJ.Ue areatated 1111ts

tirs' twoMatlou. '-7 reul"20S.1 ~ to1.1eVS.Dl f'olW&1a .all COT.I'D tulIlterpNtatioa of the prorialou ot UUs tltl••

the tactor. ot 1eJIIthof Mm._ 111a .part.-t1u well •• 111 a D1T1doa aDd. 1a tbe S7atea. abalJ. 1»8,1.,.A ••ulderaUon 111 ••••• ot p..-tiOA, traut.1" toa •••••.~~. -".1_, or ~-on. VbeD .ap10,... "1tl:d.D.• elaa .•• t•.••are. qu11t1e4 • Imovl• .,. t .fldl 1 ••.• me1eJUtT, .ad." .JhI'al.·117alt1e to perto •• t::J1Ia.tbe.~,... V!~ ·'be •• a... laath of Mm.••"M1ft,~t.naee 1.D.pro.oUoa oruaut.r to a•••• ." •••.. pJ'O_eu.cm ,qalut ••• u.on orw-ott __ h11OW1DI ....D1Y1a1oJlllae •• al1 DIIIt '.uti .• _a •• ld.Va17 _uuaeor 11111'aUOA 1a -tile eo•• l4er.u-ot aulori t111Mt wbeDeftr theN aha]1 •• aD 0,.2D11ft a Ii .••• D Tia10A 1_ratioD vU1 ••• ,1.,..n to t:beMD1on*7 .r' tbe e-plo7e •• V1th1n tiMt J)1n.loA .tor.b_fer. to ••• ano1e.or ,N_UoU ••••••• iatoaucdlD1Y1a1ou. to tile ••. th.t the •• ,10,. •••• 11BOt••.••••••• 1a17 1II;pe". ill tbeir _raal adY••••• twitb1a tM Din.lon...., au.,•• arlt1UaJ7 or U.cr1ll1-utoJ7 41."1". of tMa pollOJ' ahall 1M nb3••t iD rn1.wUDder the. rr .yan.. pJlO_4ure.

Page 7: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

"205.2 In ••••• of ~t1GJlt vaut.r. "'\1o~ eD41apott COII»aav tha11 11" _us.••• tlo.ll to _:;10,.. •••eo.,.,. ••• rl tJ'. D1Y1a1e1l or hpartMDt MUOI'1. . IaDd e1u.1t1 ••Uon MIdorlt7 •• Nt torth 1a w.· u.aU '1 ue 206, 'lNt DO GOUl_l'ation -.bal3 •• ,1.- \1Dder_011 flue. to a pJONt1onu7 ..,10,...•••Otber ••• tlo.. proYl.. 'hat •• tile fir.t '4q ot, .aeh

_ath tbe OoIlpaQT will po.t ~t ~t. aTate. a Un .t all•.•••• 1•• 1ft~o.•••""Nd •. t.be Acl'e_.' ·001\1".' .''teJIpOJU7••........• •.•-.t.. 111·-.,.rU7 ,.N·•••.1ajo.ata ,.cJ-.'

'J,:

01••• 1tl••••.••·( ""loa20J Jt.) ,that· ..,. ~,... ••• nlIId.t

..,. 11&11ald. ••. ~ 30" po••••••••• , vtWll 10 •.•• '••• the

elateof ,..u..a "(h.tton 205'.6) ••• ~at tbe -Ill" ~ au.lImt'-debell .•••11" "pl".f'ereaUal ·•• 81"ratio." in a ,Neert •••••••••• !'heN are 81.. ,JIOrill1oU -1Il'1JII "pnt.reaUal8Ou1_ratlon· ".1' .,.eUl •• d.••••••••• to ld.••• r. v. aN1ft the S_ Dlne1o.or Depar--.t •• 1Il tua_ 4I1usUl_t1on

1D wbloh 'be •.aoaaq •• .,.. (•• .u. IOJ.8). tel' •• 41t1lll ••

..morl tr1ft that e2••• 1ft ••\iM an.-ieri'" ....-ue4 ••.ld.••• r .1a.aeh o1aaa.lt1 •• U- videJ..tai,.r latM ·.nal .),iM

of,JIOpe••1eJl"( •• et1oa 20$.') • tor "PN,.•.••tla1· ••• 1••.• u.a·or _tera_ wbolen the 00IIp..,.'. _107 to .ter •• ANecl

1'01'''. "I' aDAct ot CoqN•• aa4 van "..,10784 •. 1t "'1'au_ .lot (Seotloll 20".10) •• pronel.u ..,....817 aatbor1811aC

tile 00.,.,.. 1. u.. ••••, lt ••••• t ••••1••• ~4 hoa •

",.,1t1e4 ld.••• r 1a NSpoue to ,.st1Dl a jolt •.•• IU.lOY.·iIl 1t.a.•.,.Uon ioJ..a • 1'lIlal tlppo1a••• t to nch ~o'''. (leot10n

205.13) •

Page 8: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

Aee-ral l1UtaUoa u,.. tale "Jlior1t7 pNt.NaM. of tbe

bl4de•• .tor all 01••••• of ~ou 1a 'tulia of tbeir ",al,1t1oat1olla

1. OOlltdDe4 ill Section 20,..11 "ut..,.w20,..U JIotv1Uu1bad1u ~ool1ta1De4 1a tbl. 1'1U8.CMpav •• re~ •• t tM i14 .~.., .-p107M ¥he do•• DOt,. •••••--.vledp,K111t .n1oiuq, aclaptU111tJ•• Wa1ea1.1aS1S\7 ",\11MCl tor \be ~OD oa vh10h \be1t1.1.- ••••• 11

twoobI' "ns.oaa ••.• Uhd •• euu..c lip.t upon tbe

iatentWlWllddltb :•••••• '.1•.·••••••.•••to ..,. ••••••. -,:,." -":',:<\',",'-, ':. ,. , "'"

t.u.w••'w205.15 __ •• ~,... 1. appo1D.'-. to • "aoaw on•••••• 1. of a1d.11V ••• )HtrNUl ",8] tn.••tl •• 1JlPNt.nue .to _ eIIPlOJ'M vlt.b. ,N._. eluauleat10llMIdo~ ••• PIOn••• iIl-Ninaie •• (a) ,UI). ..(e)of .ae.t1d 20"." .NOt Or111.peteN'" ~ ••. eap1o,..vlUlpea_ ••eo.,,~_i.ftV •• »NY1u. 111 ••••••tin.lollS (d), <e) •• (t) or ••• Ucm 2DJ.'1 MHof'eoapaJQ':•• :ll .'1fT 1JD1oa .t 1t. ...la1oa at leuttift (" 4q8pr1or to ..,leU,oIl of' tbe traut.1" orp~t1_ ••

11205.16 _ ..,1Atyee •• ,n•.•.••117 ..ce.,.. ..,.'. m~.••UonaDd.1D.••••• uUoa .f' tMaea10rtv ao4 ~o' '1 I,olle1ea .••taU•• d !aNeta .., •••••• 1Jwobthe1ft••••.•••••••••. of thU .~ ••

S2II.Z.IIMftepUy.. ,y .- ,,1•• ~,.ar014·eaploJM,

¥bo,an.r •••••. tlac tN. h1Ihaebool 1Il1""1 aDd••m...,tor_. 1'1,"78•.• With* ArIq, •• "Nt U. eap10y of the 00ItpaIQr

OIl "' __ .1'22, 1"'7. Hi••• rd. w1til the ColipaDT .1&_ that

da. baa _.uauoUI1 ._pt tor atwo-78a:r 1&_lTal cbariDI

vh1eh lie ".. en II1lltU7 lene, bay1Al __ Neall8. to dutT _

the u.,.

Page 9: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

x: ~. wJ'b4 ne ••• l.••17 as a CUUJ. La.rer, !leaporU'J

vai.-an, !..,orary .Helper, !eaporar, Gu •••• 1' ad Helper betore. 1'01Dc on 1I1ll'.,. 1eae .Io••• bel' 8, 1910. Upon hi. ream

IoftlllMlr 30. 19S2- nAMd ..,1o,..t vi Ul ,be COapeaT aa •

Bel,-r. bat 'to "rU7tbueattar a••l •• 4 to worku ••...

!..,.I'U7 Oa. Makerat tbe PoWeJlOpl.t. ".aU-ela thi.

po.1UG. am_•.29, ""3 •.•.••••••~ tbeltlcldtDI '1'0.-••••.. ot!1\leJ05, ,. v•• "••••• .,. ••~U •• 'l'•...··1Il

Ula\Jo1a __ ·".. •• at••••••• '-"1' ••••• tndOa.t a1'1'.1' u pari of a ••••••• erev "1111-raeaq leak wrk, ••

•••le-at vh1. baa Uoqllt b1a bto UNot eonuet with tbe

COIq»••• '. .,,-1". Be"U .Ull ,.rtoftl1ac th1. _I'll on

.A.q\l.t 23. 1''';, 1iM ute of tbe -ar1JIc.OnMq 1, ~9'"tile eoapaDJ po.ted _t1 •• ot two .•.-.1e.

b 'tbe elu.1t1oatlea .f Ap,NIlU •••• m•••• lathe auDepar_nt ot ·the •• l'raao1.CIO Din.loD. ApPNDaately aa. ~._Hn ••l •••.• 1U1.•••t.Ib1••• y. -tor •• ah .t tlMt .•.•••• 01•••

A.lob.•••••• COM',tMtor •• la ha01_ D1Y1.~a, eoapo'"of t.be av.,er1a••••••• t t.be au •• a..vi_a1 Depar-.at. and.

'tbe Oftl•••••••• 1'. rert •••4 •• blo, ."., ._, •• 1t 414 10,

of the MAiorl'" r-aldq of .aoh b14der. AdIIlttedlT, Y

ruke4 b1p.t -DC tbeIl1n U11. re.,eotl _t tile CO""'te.

awardedtbe ~o'. to otber bl"'r., 1Dt.be __ of ODe ttolt, to an.plo7M ...-4 ~:• '. Who re•• l.,..4 .tb8 other t10b

1. DOt aboWD. 'b1'the proof.

Page 10: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

On.., aIt" 19"" the Co.,.., .aw wrlt ••• tl. to tbeVJa10athat '. bid. tor the ~._ awardell III - had bMD.-p••••., aD4tbia p'leY... fo11cnfe••

fta CoapaIV plIO••••. mm..an the noor4of U. p1.eYaD.

at tMprlor •• p•• f •• po_d.uN.tae1w1Snc tM MparatewitteD ",on. aU opuw.u .tlt ••• aa4 'be VIII.', ••••••.•

of the •• '~' wtd.Ob Saw.uta.ct_ •••••••••••. tter.,~tad.."OOr41t~,. •• that at •• ,rl8r •••,_ •• '~ •.••••.••••••. ·•••• ,... ••••• 14•••• t •• panl •• ·••• OM ..-;

.ftd.JaI \be q'G8Utl •• U.••• t y _ •• a 111•.•• ror ~ AppftDtl ••

lerri_'. JOb,tbeCO•••••..•• po.1t1onMiraI uaat .• cUt aotpo••••• tM ••••• U7 ••• ] it1oaU4nla aiMe bi. dlaolp11a.'17 NOON

..".4 \bat. ha41a.u-n4 "pn.... tor M1q1ate ..writ,tor leaY1a&~ ~oll."17 _toft hl. "l1.f ••,. ••• and. torMktq ,,", •• ~ HllU'U 1a tbe 'N•••• of __ .r ••

HoWYer.at 'tbe ar"'ratiea .tep tile 00IIp_'. ,..lUOnv•• Ulat •••• l •••• ts.ea.f ''11'' !" • ..-un, ••Uoa. IeIU • part.f tba tl\1Mja.!oa to tile •••••..••• 1. ~ ••••••• f 1-.

.-- •.11;J••••••• tbe proper 1aterpNtatlcta of Seotto. aos .11+ ot

~ AI,..••• t. Coulatent vital till. Yiw l' .).eo•• DOt to

)1'0." en"'" "lar41Dl I • defto1-.d.ea ,"1NII&1»1.7

aYallUle t:o 1t. 4ftIu." DO_ of Yt - _". npemaoH at tlut U-

., hi. al1e •• 4 ",r1ll.lla. DOl' tile vrittea "POrta tbe7 adII1tted17

•••• _a~l'"",ull17 DOrIIIV' ..,la1at ••.•••1.••4 fro. ""'1""1U'41J:a& b1. ooDduot wN1n."oU,ht .1"0" \11.,

Page 11: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

De .pabotl. that ..u. oD17 en•••• of 'be allepel

"pri.... otteN. 'b7tbe CDIIpaDf or eUo1te4 1'JtoII 1t. vit•••••••

• a.1.t. of 'the .,.tout. ••••"' 1t. __ r ot the JoiDt.-.1 '.e Vb1eth1aft.tleaw4 'be pi.eftJlce loae after the eftJlt.

111•• auon oo~.. ftd.. en.nee, vb.1oh 1. all bear.lIl',

ill IIaJV 1ut __ • aeTVal u.•..-.•••, tor olm.oua rea•••

baa le •• pJIO_U.-tone the ".'s.., ,lftllftllJeet to CO'••._''''1'' •• - vtiM•• ···lIMtaI·tD,~ bDvldp of••• '''ta.

YI _ . ., ••••• at ••• vi.•••••.•••••.•• t1•••e.1eh he traaJr17 adld.tte4 _ •• f •• allele.1D.traeUon. lat

la.le4 tbe oecnarreaee of otbllr.. Ia tbl, ,tate of tbeNoor4". are ooutl"alM4 to a•• pt as ._tatiaJJ.7tNe y. ~ ••

ftrdoD of ·hi' 41'.lpl1JaU7 ft00Jl4u4 t1D4 tbat the oD17 1Dtra••

U.ou he oopitted _ the. ~.b~tb,1, a1X 7ttQ•• f ••rYl ••

With ~ eo.,.,. vb10h ••••• '1 t1e4 to ooUl"rat1on in Mol.1ftetbl. •••• an ~... fhat •• "'.20, 1953, wbeD • vas ••• 1•• 4

••• O••••••r .t •• ,.tn_,lat.· lAIn· •••••• r•• r.·•• t••••• ~r11 • VhUe •••.•.•••. ·!d.ae. ·fIloII .••• ·J'aI'kbc

plaoe to •• *bu, ••• (2) !t&aton •••• •••••• t.h1n. (liareh 21,

22or 23, 19S3>vben 10 ••• 1_4, be left tM plet 80_ halt

!JDUJ' ear17 witbnt _&1t1qtbe uorlYJ]. .f hi. rell.f t 11\ ODe

lUt ••• vlth JmovlHp that the latter vo1l14 IIDt "port aID

the •• 4 of the abUt. Y. .dJd.tte4 that h1a auperYlaor ftrNl17

Npr'een4e4 hill for tard1Ae•• en March 20, 1'"3 Del tor 1eaY1Dc

hi. WOK 'betore \lie .alwdU.le4 .utUr&c t1M on tbe two otlwr ab1ft. J

Page 12: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

_t lie Mal•• tbat •• ..,•• eftr •• ,riuDde. tor .ald DC"ro.atorrMUrUU. the '" •••• et a •• -.er. It i. u.a41.,.te4 \hattIMan 1. _ NOON. of 111. haY1Dc__ 41.ct1,Uud tor. av otber

10.n••••MeiDl •••• a1aill_ ad per80ul flUe] 1t1-

•• Uou .t i • -,'tor tU job 01 .pNJlti •••• rd.__•w..,.~...te" ••• ~ •...•t.UAhh,"'lopq'.OON •••••••••••••• •. ...,...1:•..."..·~~t......•."17'••.,1.to "'-'oIl ."•• ' •• dJaC•• ·_""'a &p1e,..-.t'. ,..-later tbaD.!' Oil IoftUer 10, 1"", • _,worD4 ••••••• iwlT

••• La_Mr, J'1MaaD.U14"11*' atll101DI 011 IdJJ.taJ7 1.e•.•• tortM pe••1M .1•• ..,. 1S. 19J1.tl1 J-al7 30, 1,,.3. OD~ 1atterdaM "- "_4 ..,le7MD.t v1\b. ~ COQaDTas a Belfer, wrJd.Dc

ill that poutioa \111\11 •.•.•• 29, 1'''3 .V1MtA he vu pro••• toAp,NaU" Fitter. A,.. 1&"- ••, 011 IluIe 29. 19sa.. he wu.,JOb ••.••. -. AppnaU•••• "l_ •••• ~oh••• renlt .f .tM

..uoaa or'.u.0CdIp __ ft ··•••• uto ••••u.oa. .It!.••• .,.tdtlla'alt.bD'qh _ •••1••••" ••

AppftJlUMFltter. laCl11aUlal·tbeOM .14 .• Yf - '. Ntu1N

"pe.'e ••• taot. __tM ••• 187M vit.b tba co.,..,.'. _.~_r.,_wrtbe1e •• ater tIaa Aln__ t tb1. Job, l1n]'u that ot AppnaU ••

••rn•••• i. DOt 01..... •• ••• "1Iwo1'Y11t1 pe ••aoDal eoDtaot 117

t.be ..,lope nth •• punt." v1tbi1l tM J"lft'1ev.ot ••• tlea20,..1-'. BowYer, 1t 1. &110\11141.",.4 that • ".1'Ul llDeot

prolN ••loJl" uruIe•• !'1Ue 20" ot tM 'e"_at 1. tna "'ppnlltlce

Page 13: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

Pltter to Appl'eDtl.lem. __ •

ftae~o' •••on,Uoa tor AppnaU •• 8erY1-.n _tu.'17

ep'H4 to • tbe Coapur au. the 'Oa1on"hiehv •• in .treet aU!

JlI17 1, 19S1f.N••••• foUow ••"u.1n lerYle.-n IUl4 "'obuS •• 1Apertol'll1Da all \beaU••• f •••• '- e1••l1fte::= ••• ill .441UoJl,vben'JIOfle1at, perro•••. '" . ....tl. _tel".bAm,.!.t.·.lo ••......U4... ~.... YaJA.• t.a.l •••..ta1. ebart. ...• hM' ••.•.•.•, ••.• ···uae".u..ot ..•Appnau •••• .-n.•••••. tel4lnt-JlahJ1i.t~ ••. to·-. ••• _••••. ..,. •••• "'.•••.•••••• ·••. le•• tlWi·tM .•• m.•••. ·ja·-.a .•••"_"'.·'1.''''~ :tMa••••••••u••••

Whiletbe pertl •• a.aacre- Oftrh taplie.tiona of tbe'JlMf •• •• Yt •a .ld.U_ aDd. perllOlUll ...-ut1••tlou to •

.,pob •• Ap,..U... le1'Y1"'1l tM1r eh1.f dUte...... "Ilt.r

Oil the u." ad a•• ,. of •• CoaIpaD7t• oW,.tiona 1IDder

leeUoll 20$.1". We•.•••• I'111J tUD tir.t to w..I•• ralcaaauoa.~1a~_U-.

:rMV •• • •••••• t1oIll. that with ••• ,..,. the 'UarMeaecon. •• ot~h apee1t1d1DleoUoa 2OJ.1.". rts.. ,.\110

.DUot, .pem.ao17 m4 Molm1oal ~ob.... well •• all of the

othU ~outo whleht1U. 20; i•• pplicable. the CoapaDT 1.

oontra•• ", 17 .W••ted to po.t .•.••811.1..... ftll tbaa on U.

.••••1. of "So1'1t7, to...... tiM17. written _t1ft ••t1oJl to i.tM

tIIl10a1dMm tibe bi•• f • ..aior ..,10"" 1. ..-,..... and. to

rollo" tbe ,riw_oe pro.4IIft vbeD.1Jneke4 '" \be Mn1ol"fllPlo1"

Page 14: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

•• pJIOn... 1-.tbe !1U._ III 1t. n_the 0D17 4.1tt.reaoe

between tM •• thne •• teprl •• of ~ola.a4 tbe other. lnaotar•• flue 2051. eoneeru4 1. to .•• f0Wl411l the o1'1terla wb1eh

the CO.,., U7 a,l'17 1Ilnj ••uae tM ..,14 of a aea10r ..,107"-

'fhua. acoortiDI to 'the lJDlon'. ar.-at, section 2OS'.11 •• tab-

u ••• the criteria of "bowl••••• I1d.ll, .mel.aq. a4aptab1l1'7

aDdpbJ'.loa1 .WltT" u.eDeral •••llt1cat1ouvh1eh •.• t"., .., a,1»iMu hr.,. ~Ol•• and'tbe .A1T.tt••t of "81oa

IOS.11t'. \hat with N•••• t to ,tM.•••• ol_.of jeN t.bfte11.te4 the a44ltlonal viteria of' -abll1tT •• peraoaalcauaUtloa-tl8a." an ,Nper IN'" tel' n~e.t1Jal tM 1d.4 .f a ••Illor

eap107''.fte "UT, Oil theother h•••• "au SecUOD. 2O;.1't u

ba'rial '" ,art.. It 00•••••• t.bat the f1J'.t part of the ••• UOD.

olaUeate. It to po.t DOUM' of "••••• le. aD.4 "•••• 1••1'" '148••lIdt •• tor ., ot tile tbne caa'-,o1'l•• of ~o'b.theJl' •• ,.o1tl.4 ••••• .,.1',it"..... tld.'.1I11Iatl.u taUTti .eJaar.... if 1.\a",N_taUft.po.t the.~1a aDd. l'eY1R' 'the 'bi4a •.••••1....... tAe•• aoa4 part of tIIe ••• tta, tile .CIIIp..,. GOllteD'., PIOn'" aD.

Olltricht exoeptlon tor t1'ae tbNe .atecorl •• of Jolt. 0-0. the

prooe4ure •• tahl1a.be4 111 !itle 205 tor •• kb'l aen1orlt7 t.M

_ten'Dln, factor 1Dappo1ataat..1 t _pe. that \h1. part of

the Aotion vu DOt lIlteDded._rel1 to authorl.. the CoapaD7to

"J.ct UA4,'aallfl.4••• ld.••• I'., lalt rather to pend. tit to,

••lect the eaplo7MIt elM •••• t au1t.4 for • public oontaat ~ob

Page 15: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

117 a1t111VaD4 pereoaa1 ,ual1f1 ••Uo.. ••. that 'thereto1'e tbe

Co.,., 1. ct10tbeclldllalS.f-.el 4i.enUoIl 1D•• ldne all appo1a\-

_t to _eh a ~o-.. !he COIIpaD7 teJl1 •• ~t ~ pi••••••

pro•• 4uN ealarp. on aA7au-..taIlU•• r1llltor ,rat. _ell 1'1p,.when ••• ut.t aDAoon ••••• tbat tbe 0D.17 er1••.•••• an:11ala1e

to an eap107'' "'1' leot1on IOS.11t an 011 \be •••• t10u 'Whetaae1'

OJ" DOt tMJolt _ •• V11i1Wl •• ot __ tbrM ••••• lu.Wo.tiOu,

•••• I' Of .t.- 00,,8IV"'~ _h •• '~tto.'.""r..•• 1al•• 10%'.,..-., •...•.•• ~oll,•••••• I' '.r_,··tMeoJIPd¥ •••• tt. .,.01l1--.tol1 tile Ha1. ot aldl1'" aDdpenollal

CU.l1t1•• tlo.... In 1t. new'! hu DOt laroucht • 11'1"__

0118al' ottM.. que.tion. aDdthaN 1. _De otMl' .Ya11ane W h1a.

Valike pron.1o.. J'e,arclS.mI the _ _'b~•• t 111 • 1004

...,. eGll•• t1" ••"_t't tM _ral t•..ala •• ,tactill1'1'1. 105•••• _t,U11tJ ".SoI'1\7l'iPt. ill prao~1ou __

...."_1't to ••.,an-a-.t •••• laU. __1.'''*11_ 01' Ge•••• tJ.aa .1IpJ»,..... ,-art,.. ••••..••••"".........,1.Uepl'O'd •• 'tibat •••• 11101'111"'1', ".Jld.1IlI- • ,"".1'1_4 ••a1or1tyMq_ue t .bal1 •• ,1ftJl preferential oou1"rat1oauale ••••• taUsto _t tM re~llt. 1'01' U. Job .,e011'1ed 1a ••• tloll 205.11.

thus, lID4er 'the ,.aeral _Sol'1tiY aDd~ob ~cldll11 polleT .1' tM~"""., ., .•.• -" ..••. _"' ••.... ,- .•••• ,_............, .-- >'--. ._".~" ... ".,,'.~. ,'~" '. .... . ,

!.!.~!.~_.~~1' ..~!~1' ~~.~~"R~~ .."t.I~.~a1Ilto ..,•..~,~ ~.~ctYwh1chtM CoapalQ' IUIT reJect 0D.171t.~~...-.n ,~ ••. taotual_._.,-"" ••....•.----~ ...•.•••••...._~"' ••v-''' •."'.~,'·'''·••.••.••••...- .••.•,..',.*,;; •.. ,<", ..~ .• _ ...••• w,••. ·.,"", .•••.·.·"".',"•...._,,·--<.· •.. ~·, •.... , '.... .. .

ntdarl •• that he 1. _t ~cl tor 1t. A prior .ward 111• 0•••----."-,._,, .. -.~.•. -.. ..'.'

Page 16: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

, 1Jm)1'f1a1tM propl"1o'7 .f UIe eoapaDT'. a.tion 1a "~ •• t1Dc

tM laidof a MD10r0.,10,.. )J'iD.ftJdJac ".U-n 205.11 ani..... '"at tile. GOno1uaion. aD4 .•• f1Ja4 110 ••••• Il to cU..tar) tbea.~-- __•••.._It<

!ha.. oUeft'au.u "',aH1JII 'be •••• ral poll., ad. pro_..,.. of ,tUe 20". DOt, __ YOI', Nub .,-"1011 _lJId.tte4

111w.. _. Ie" tale -mOl' eap107H'' 'b14" •• DOt N~•• te4"'r "cu.-n 205.11, _tlrT iaftk1III __ ••• Y1aJ.o••• f Ie.uoa

JPI.l••••• ·~U.,.t4t .u"•..-U"""'" tIIe••• j",aM •..,.-.' .et •• la't.r .•~1a .•••• Iliat of .-.. rlUAu

" , ' '1

awholAt vida .••••••.•.•1'...•••. "a1~ ill ., ••• ,rn1oulT

81''''vated.OD it. ta" Section 205.la. en •••••• a ••••ral 1D.Mat to

-a.tT 'u.. OoaIpaar' •• a~aotu.1oJtlllat19aa tlDder tile ~1U.

1a til1i., ftOlIlde. 1D.tM t1uM \7,.. .f..1ob.toM" _aU_4,ria •• paWo GOatact. _,.n18017 aM .ebD.ieal ~olt.. Acoor41Jal

to UMt Collp"-' DiNctor or %aG.Vla1lelaUou the..tbne01•••••• f ~. ••• ••••••~r1llo1uioa ill •• hetioa __ ••

;.- CoItpIDt .81Nt to Ntaia Mapou1la111t7tor •• 14teuaa.-plo,... ,__ ftll •.•• au1 •• 1D. t.bea.'a ••••••• wb10heouJ.4 _t lie .•••••• llabe4

.• \M applloatlonof .triot MB1orit7 ral •• aad. ••• vh1eh"",-iredtbat appolatMnt. •• •••• OIl the bu1. of tbe eo.,...,.'. ~\14••• t

•• ~ the 1a41ridual a1lm'te. aD4 perJOJUll tw'l t ti••tiolll of

\bo.. ...1r1Dc tbea.

Ve&10aot doultttbat the .tt.i_at ot u.••ob~•• ti.•.••_Uy.te4 tbe CoQaDl'vbeA Seotion 205.11+ vaa 1uerte4 111 the

Page 17: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

.!1Ij !II r I :t I t\;1It ;1.1 f i= Iii• f·.· = •.. It:'k ... f. . I ~ t fI. :2 •• r I r.. ..!' ,1ef t .1 \ r r .•1 Ii •• t:

• I'" t! f !i... .'. .....;J 0 It '"fl.· ..• ••. 5f" i= ..C. .l:' ....•. :t' !1-. .•

: ~i I..·Ii;i~~~lJ I· I~i t i;lif!~.if; ..~Ilt:£i.r~i;il • fi f ~. I!I Ii I ;l"!. ,f (! 1 r ~ i :t ! !

..:i ::i s. ' i ? 3, ..;;, I.J r f ~ ~i-.i~ifli.i1i!· ,,= t1 ~tf\ gi~ I . /

Page 18: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

Mea atate4. OoJmtr"1J, the Unlon'. ar.-uta .-,b ••he tM800p. of theola11l.UOJl ••• nle ••• tiM 1S.II1te4 • ..,UoD. •• tM

J.I01e .of a ..,.. ••••ncbDl.to •• C(1J.l t tioaU.. .tatell in leot1on

2OS.U.Cou14eJ'1Jalnr.t Uut _tve •• aoope of lM .1a11Jat1oJl

weaote that .~n ill tM 1f1t1e tile •• r" ·.ulder- •••.it.DO_ "ooaas.4er.tloA" •• 1r iIqaon •••• 'DI _ ••• t.lw&bnotMU-

••• ll_a\lu.8 •.••r*.·Id.••,••• ,••• ,. .,-"•...-t... l;!._., -.j" - ,.' , ' ,

t:~~_~".A~~.~w.~~~••~.~~N~I.'ua".N~'.to ••• a11t1•• W.•••r _utldto pM•••••••• r the _ra1

. '- ~ • "'fItfi:t' '~""""~'~'~'~I- ···,~,~·<·'"~~tM;~:<' .•..•• .-, ••••••••• ",,_,. ":'''''''''">''':;''''''''' ••''.'.'., .....

to~. atate4 1a 8eetlon IOS.l •• tile .,.e1t1o MC.... ..t~th· 111'lId1i'i~;'t w."'t,.~>c;"l"~__ "~t·"h1J;ld."'·potu•••

~... ..4 $" '_" _._~""""";'.""_""'":"_ll"!'~~#_o'~.~~';~~~"~.¥.i:~~~J"p""~~:~:Y,,""'}-Io.-k,...,.,_~,~l'~:""- ',~;,<I,..l#;;t,:""- ,je.

aOner of ~Dt. _et1oa 2OS.1"aJo1aa tM aoap..,. to"".;:;,.,1.- ::~'~~'~'i:l~~~ ,,·-Jl.--;,":-~;' '~~:"ft¥fh_",::,"t.~1.~~< >

eoaiMr Id.•• _'-1".' fer Y.o_lea 1a ··tIIe~o•• there ref.I'M4

to •••• _nta p~."t- elw1GUNt•••• to tile otber pl'OY1.1••

of u.' ftU4t v.bS.ehwn14 .• ",rl •• 4 ot .pi ••or en••t weN U.

_1'.-_iw" to ••• ~•••• 1lanaI ••• atte•.••·•••. MUonD tbi•.••.uoa ··tbaDIt)t1atD17'':~1a 'bIttiUa.;"t

~ •• 1t 1. tIP•••• t taat-. tM 1.1» _aNa a•. ',tee ••the.tep. ot •••• rtaIDS., tM -.1or1\7 of .aob 111•••• ~:r tileAppreDtt_ lel"f1oaen'. ~ ••aD4~ ex-'"'ne ~ 4ua11tte.t1o:aaot tMld.dder. 111the or"r of tuu HIl1orlt7 pNt ••••••••

•• t.bU •• 4 'b1tM o'ber pro't'1a1oaa of tbtt ~1t1e1t 414SlOt aot

ftl1Ultar1l7 1D.tba .uro1 •• ot all .' '.'.4 41."t1on, •• \be

COIIPUO'hu no••te4. tNt ratMr .ooortiDI to • _tlDi to preoe4Ur.

Page 19: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

•••.• olall,awry upon tM eoa'aDJ b7 .xpre•• lap.,. 1Jl Seotion ,\. '.,--f'~ " "20,..1" u4 otiler pron.loll.of the 'lil..,." ,;.~''"

Whe\1ler.in taJdnl the tvther .te, of re~•• i1n1 y( -I.b14 to enUle It to appoint tM aut •• t ••dol' lat"r. tbe

Job Allart. COllll1tte. also ooapl1 •• with tbe COapa:Q7'. ola1teati.aI

1ID4e1'the Apte_nt 1. ..ther ••ttel' aDd the era of the •••• tlon.Wtte. tor 4eo1aioa. Tu CoJlpIl(J' .•••, •• tba't ~. tue.tl0 o.

ltl _ri ta I' '_lOdoe .~n t7 to 4-01.. a1D.oe1e.tl.' 2O".11t

•.•.•ate •••••••• rn.lt ••1S•••• ·141••• t1on :1D. Mlct •• ·••

appointMat.. w. •••.• alNaq ItDtHtbat lIhU. Qt J.aApap

.Y14eDc1.Il&an intent to reeop.1s. ftch ael1.onUoa 1. ,"MDt

1ft other proY1alon. of the 11\1. 1t 1. oo•• p1ftOU'17 abl•• t 1Jl

thi. o~, vh1oA.'b7 "aT ot IOntrut apreaall' lla1t. the Coap...,.' a

appo1At8ents to appo1D.tMata ••.•• "on the bU1a of aldll t1' act

perlODal 4,1lal1f1oa..,1ou".

Aaa1n, UU. lill1te4 exception to \M I••• ral MD1ol'1 tJ

ad jolt b1,,11\1 pollo1e.of '.flUe 20'1. 0_ .f •• "tau .f

W.Ac •••••• t••the ItlatU'prektt_ a4 appU •• t1oJl"ot vh1eh,

a\)•• l1t po.iti" 1J1d1oat101lto the GOJltrU7, aIUl theN 1. DIme,

18 a proper .ubJect torN'f'1 •.••.b7 the ,r1e .••ace P1"Ooeclu1'e UDdar

the leUl"alprovi.lonl NCU'tiaI that procedure •• t forth in

!'1tl. 102, aotablJr Sect10n 102.6, •.••en apart boa a.rq apeclal

provi.iona 1101"8 att1ftlat!ftl¥ Ny •• 1ine an :1Jltent that thi.

should be so. But suob apecial prori.a1oa. are aa4e 1n If!tle 205'.

!he •• are Section 20".1,. Wh1chrequire. DOt1ceto the Union 5 daTa

Page 20: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

prior toeoapletlae a ~t1on or 'r.~.r 1D.vhieh \be COIIpaDl'

baa U'N,.de. MD10rlt1'b7 •• l.oUllla ~UD.1orld.4der upon tbe

'Mai. of "U111t,.aM ,.noD.l tullft.atlou" u.4 ••• u.n 20".16

wbleh apeo1t1.al1J' "'1''' aJrI ..,10,. •• -arl..,.•.• Ute COIIpaDl"•

.appl1cation at 1ate., •• ta\1ea ot tbe auJ.orlt7 ••• Job ltl4dSDI

poll81.' ot!ttl. IOJ the rl,k' to 1J:wobtbe p1.TaIlM '1'O.aur ••We_1I14 .,.... that, .,_rallT .,.l'Idac. pi.,.••• )Nee-

.aw..a do DO_N thaa prcm. •• a •.••• .,. for. ftMi.at1oD. of••v••tal ••1.hta oroWl.tuaa t.t.ft17•••• 1I11a11e4·1Il

otMl' pnY1slou of • colle.tl •• ~Dtacl that tba1Jo JlN••••

•• 4a l1tt1e l1,ht UpoD U. lD.ta.t of tbe parU.e. to •• ate orv.tt.1'abol4 neb npt, aa4 onlcaUoD. ¥hUe •• ~ ••• ot tM

••_.taU •• pJOn.1.ou 1.~. .lilt 1t 1. tlal'd17 to _1Jlte1'Ntl that •.•• parti •• W01IU take paluto w1te •••• lal•••• tie. 1ato •.•••.••••. , ,1'OYlUDa tor •• ""r ••• llit ofpartlft1aJ' ripta or oW,aUou v.ld.tIh tbe,. 414Mt 1Il1ieD4to

u1.t ••••r It. ft_t_U. •• )t8I'1a1euM4 --Nt u_n. tMabnaUft ,l"O'f'1.lo•• an .p1afa17••••• "i~et _ 18.• ., •••.

taUoA ••• pa2al.,· t;M rllbt. mel oW,.t1.ou wldeh tM •••• 1&1

nMcl1a1 ,1'O'Y1.1ou •• _ to exs..t, tbI pH ••••• of tbe latter

an.,.. .u toubt that ••• _ 1a\erpNtaUon ot tb8 toner 1,

to 1Ie,nrerzreel. Wet1Ilel 1t ",,11ke17 that ".tl0. 205.15, vh10hOIlIt. ,•.••1. apeeinoall,. ••.••••••• to appoin-..-' pel'll1tte4

onl1 \Ul4e1' Sect10. 205.1"", or ••• t1oJl 20,..16 whleh _te. _

ueept10n 1n tbe C_ ot auob. appo1ntMnta, would ban __ written

Page 21: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

into t1tle 20J in -t.betora ill vb1eh tbe7 .ppear ha4 tu part1 ••

lateDda4 auebappo1ntaeat. to •• •••• 1D. \be,_.rai •• of anuollla1" aaa.ae-nt faoUon. ..tiler, 1t •••• nident thattIMa.. ,rori.101l. weN s.uerte4 1D. t.be ~1t1e tor ~ .••rJ P'VPOiM

ot proY141D&,ro.cbIre. ...,. vh1ah the UD10naD4 •• *lln•.,...

np107M IIlpt •• t vlletber tmT appo1a"nt ot the COIlpaDl' 1Dftld.Dl

'-be 11111_4 ••• ,Uoa.tate. 1D.".Uoa 2DS.llt vu 1D.1'••t ••••

wl~ tbe •••• t t!Ie -UlliktloD.

At_JObt ia,,-t.wut(p.,12),t,be CoapaD7.,,.•• toeoaour 1Il th1aooao1u.lo •• !'M,. 1t _cIe. 'bat all -plo7M

aclrleft. Oft, the .,pUe.Uoa ot SeetioD.205.11+ IIq ral •• \be

••• tloa, later aua, "vbe'tMr or DOt the CoapaDTaa4e \be

appo1at.Jlt o••• b•• l. ot alail1tJ aDd. personal •• a11t1oattou·t

a eon••• lon C'I1te laoou1.tent vi th 'be new tbat tbe CoIIp.,.'.

ti.ont1oa 1A•• k1DI .,po1A••• ta "I' Seetion 2OJ.1" 1.

un' j-1ted. Ita tuttler .u.~t 1Jl -the ._ •••.•• tlonthatI, bu_t UcnaPt • 11'1eftItee.a w.••.•• u.,za s.mo1.••••II1AOaoe,u,oa ftlaN1Jll ~ .00,. ot •• I\IlId.a1oa. ---., -

Qu1te oWloUalT 811 .,peta"a.t a.tu-l,.,. •••• "pol1 the

)Ula.t eoaaiderationa lrNl •••• t ~ 0111Q' _«personal

t"al1t1oat1oJ1. or one "hieh 1Dtut 414 _t ,1ft pNterenoe to

a 1»14.r ,. ••••• iaI n.per1er ••• lltloat101L1 1D tal •• ,.a,.eta

eoul4 JlGt •••• al4 to haft .ea ••.•.• "oa the 'bula ot ab111t7

aD4peraoaal qlla11t1eat1ou" vi t.b.1D.the 11111t. ot tile ex.pUGn

.tated 1a Seot1on 205.11+. !hi. would 1M .peo1tlcal11 tru, tor

Page 22: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

euapl., it •• appoU-...t· pret.rrd a 'UD1orlti •.•• r v1til ab111'7

a4 peraonal ".11tloaU.a. _ .tter UlaD. or iDter10r to •••of tMMIlior bidder to:ra puWe .atact 30b. An4 an appo1Jlt-

~;~ ••••,_",~,t_\'y;'"._,>l</.i~ .i·:,~' ,;..,_,'.,"

_ttmtl t.,l.", out.l •• the 11Id.t. ot the, ,.~.RY.~.u:a.4,:: ••• ~i"••••••• ",!•• ~:,~~,<¢.; "''':'''~''-'\:''t'l'¥-4f!._~!~~~,.;(,P.3i1i~'''-' .CC"4"·""",m' . . -', '.' .". "','. ""

aftord. ~he CoJIpaD7DO~uUt1•• tion 1"01' a taUlIN to obMrn the"", '".:' .<. .J" ""'Jlo.'"';'~";~t":"~~~,~,,·/~:·,,! ..,,,;,:,,, ',"',,_.';" :"';','" ,,,.' '-,j":~ _: :~J'.".,

~r;;"o'lI1c;'S;;/iaa,."4Upo. 1t by the M.tloll that 1t••••• ~.~.",..'~{'V' ••.•,",-':~;,;<: ',-,' '·"\_I;i;'~'\'!~~;"~-,/,;.'r,,·..;-i-·-·-:.;'</"~:~"; "i;(.- I',; , '~', ',- '.,. <~",

_1 •• 1' iibe1d._ra ••• H:IJ*I .• tbe ••••••• o~ tub •• Sor1t7•••.~~.~.~~.~;;;m.•.• of •• ,·tsue •..:~.~_~~,,~ ...~~~~~r-:~~"~"~:~'~~':"~*.;';;-~'~:~:~';~~~:-""'c";,:<'f,~>~~~~~,"~~"~;f";""W:,.<--r~::-;'< ~'~'.".""', "", " ,,' ,'. , .

USa, •••••...••••• 2OJa"_"~n.t Y ".la1I<i_ t.he". ", ;- /",'~': :.;-,' I"" , , ' - : " ',.' ' • " ' " , ' ,'" " •

ApPNau. •• IUri_ID' s~.) "u proper ...eJ&1Tit the COIIPaD7 111

ta.t appo1aU •. tM otMr b1M8r to 1t Oil the 'u1. of a1»111V aa41

'ftaraonal qual1t1eatlou-tU oD17kal.tor Q.po1.at;Mntother \)} " ;

~ •• ionv •..uu.d "'1' that •• ottoa-FJl4 t:IIa~N -'1a ••• ftdaaUlm ot w•••••t1on of tact i. square17 111tb1J1 tile I••,. .t 'tM. _1IIII1 •• 1oa 1Jl tld.s __ •

It •••• JIOt ••••••••• 117 felloW, bove'nr, uaat the UD10n

1. _nen·iIl •••••••'••,.t.ba,•••U.a ~,..1.._"1r auatI••••t1tV·••• )er.U1.-un ••Uou" .to tM.rt_~l'.'-te41a"ot1•• "IOI.11as Iroa.bUJOIl 1dd.ctb'tbe ~. Jlqft'eet

_ •• ua:J.1tU4 1d.4du. f••••• t1on l1DON. the 41.tt.reuethat ••• t1oJ120'.11, .1l.1.tent v1th the ..-ral ••niority and

30~ ld.4d'Di/poliel •• of the ~1U..autbori ••• the eo.p.,. to

tlnJ ••t". ld4 .tan ..,10,.. vbo do•• DOt po••••• the qual1t1-

.aUoll. tile" .,.olt1e4t vheNa. Beotl0D 2OS.1lt _thor1••• 1tto ••••• AJ"iIl""" on t.ba Mal.: ot aerta1Jl cr1teria, DDtv1th-

standS., tb8 MD1or1t7 .taws ot· the 1»1d4er.. OUr t\mot1on 1.

Page 23: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

to r.ad. __ AI••••• , a. it v•• written ael 11ft "au.tic

eftect to the 0b01•• of 1....- •••• 'b7UlepeU•• tbeII •• l .•.•••

w. .., aotllP't17u_ that thi. .1p1t1eaatc11ttennoe .tMea

tba tw ••• t1ou 1. the Naulto! tault7 draft_aD.hlp rather

Uwl mint8cralpan ot a ooapo.l'loD ot eoJltUot1q ri.evpo1Dt ••

Kono.,.r. thS..d1tterea •• 1Jl uJlll1DoloQ 1'Nlterated 1D.-••• t10 20,..1,." tbeoD17 otber ••• ,ion of .tb.e~1U.. .~ .vtUoh

'" ;,' .:', " " ;':. , ~, ,,' '~', .•••' ",'ry"! ...,••.

••••••• ·.1d.11V .• per.aa1 ",.Jinoat1ou· .,,, ••• )w.q"" lJO·

~rc."'. "'ei •. _,~··IftU.3)S.l".:u..,.,•• *dtor1V. ~~.

. ript •• , ld ••• ra· tor a pbUo •• tNt .tela. DOtoDlT tIT aUlon.-

1IlI tbe CoapIJl7W ft~•• t tM '14.t an eaplo,." laek1DC tl1a_ •• "&17 a)dUty an4 peJ"aoaal qu,11t1eatloaa, liNt )7 autboJ"1JdA1

1tallOW .ppo1Dt.boa_ac tbo.. so tllal1tl.4. • •• plo,..evtID •••.• v.b17 po••••••• Ul1it,. aD4penoaal tlla11tloaUou

.,.r1oJ"'- tbo •• ot .." 1ll••• J"vbo IIq ••••••. :101' to h1a.,,,•.., -., .

1'herel. ••• ••1..... tbat oftr 'tlw,utthetlD1on ..,.

•••••.•••• intbe.1a\erpNUUoa .t"oUoll20S.1" ''-"VC.'W •• .,.,.lNt 1t1 • ....,..•••a1. IbUt1t~ar.that •.•• 1' tbeln.eY-u. ,:re••tIIln iD etteot _W·l'J2 .u_. inYOIY1lll cr1eYaaoe. an'iDe beoauMof appoiDtIltmta II&4e

purauant to "cUon 205.11t wre oarr1e4 to tM permlt1aate .tep

of the pro.'" vhich tbeA aall.4 tor "01110D b7 the CoIlpaDT'.

Person•• l Manal.r. there 1. te.t1JM:)DT that iD .ach •••• the

•• rdor1t7 ottha me.mt bad. beenooll81cleN4 'but another &ploy••

v•• appo1D.te4 ".n the bu1. of .bWty u4 personal qualitioation'"t

Page 24: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

that the '.I'IIODDe1M'.".1" ~"d vrltta 4ee1.1ou 1D .ach0_ •••• 1"•• to the Innat aDd that DODe of the•• deo1a1ou

vue appealed _ the UnlOll to u. tiDal .te, of tile prooec1Ure

'1'OY141q tor arb1tration. alD.•• __ of tJae •• o1.10u of the

Per••• 1 Na••• 1' Yen P'lt 1a .n•••• tUM 1. Il1O eoJl'Y1u1q

poot of ••• ..t1aa1 11OlUlC1•••••• 1d'dobt:M7 _ ••• Ila4e ••

weibel' the 1D1o.'.tail,," to appeal tM •••••• ~·tbe arJaieva-<.···..,.1. M••• td1e lrrlU •••.•••••• 1a•• '·Coap.,··.~ •• ta~ot ••• UOIl2DJ.l •••·W1'••~ ••••• 1Jl·.the,",l'1e\701 the Pel'eoADllM_pl". "es..1oJl OIl the _1'1'. of'

the.. part1CN.1ar ••••• or lIT a PMl"al aUerl7 on 1t. part totile •• 'lVat1on ot ..,11'1••aaoe 1. __ rtalll a.D4.,.eul.att .•••

If_re 1. 81110 te.u..__ a OJ.,.,. vi.... that 1D the

1'''2 .D.bact ......-al_aoU.Uou u.. 1JJd.OJL, _lacJtu.l of tb.e

CoIIp.,.'. 1Dtie~_ or ••• t1oflmS.1., ••••• P"po.alto••1.. .~ ••etioa1a 1t. _tiftv at that the pJlOpo.al vas

..., ••••• ·V·'be .t:eap.,. •• ·tIIe· •.•••••• t ••••• V1th t!ae." -.. .." .. - .:. ""l

••• thn',1ie1.1lM..OD .-',.otMr <'..A ·Usd..1lv1a.....Uft..4;{:'.'~ " J ::~~, , :",/':."":;',,: '!': ":':'\'_'~', -J'

'tM,.••••J'I1iI .• '•• ftMIOll•• u.a· of tile••• &Dt1atlou, U.

PNJOaalto _1e."oUoa 20;.1"'." eoup1.cl nth propo.a:u

tolAoo".r.te 1t. prona1ou ill ••• tlOa 205'.11 aDd to ••t up

• 'H ••••• tol',.rtol'llalUle ., •••••1'•• .aDd • ~o1flttralalD1

,ro,r_. ..1 u.1' ParVPlOcbl •••. tileun ot eM propo.al •••

and ooulta1.D& the ",art •• of bu.an recolleotion NlarcI1DI

ftrHl tl1.cu.1oU so 10111put ,.. an un.bl. to conclUde th.t

Page 25: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

~.-"",~~:""",~.',~""~:"""",, '~_i'~'~'i~1'~,,,~,,,,,,~.,,,,,.,~~~~-~,-":""~""""~""'\\~~';'~~:"'~'~'~<", -<"''-.~''-e''':'''.":,,"~,~,.,,,,:~,,,~,,,,,

Un1o~baa DOt cu.u.o.4•..\be .,.,.' ••• ""l.D tba\ the1 ~wle'- ..•••~.~._".._'" .",_ """' .•••.•._ •..•,'••••.•'.,,..."" ..'.,, "',. ''''''''''c·w,""", ,<""',.,,. """"'" ,.."."'~'.',,' " .""~ ,..~,,?,"..... ,~,' .

8!eh__~i'!!~::-!:!~~~,)~.~'Ll!!~'~~~~~~~~J,~~O!~tlOU'-••• aa4, .\lIne all, "peada~V. CoIIpetent ert •••• to 1apup

'-__ Il'<"""]ff,t;.ool~-';'J<:'~~~~""-"~~'':'*,:.,,,,'':¥'''l .. "'''~~'iO\',.~".,.,-s'.:'-'f.'\f' {-'i' ;<-'\"~ ""-1""; . j

~ ". ""111_, , •• ttP~"" toU •••••• 1. wbol17 laeJd.q.Bowyer ••• eo.,•• eo•••••• t U••.••••1oM0f pr10r

':

,.

to .Um ·tUtMd1I _t ..•••UMtHfl'ld.ft4 tn.tvortbt ••• ,;~"_.t'"••11aidU'J".1aee 'OW'-'talat _ tbree oo••• lou

.' ,.', ,1, .

in Much 19S1 Wh11e ••• tpe4 ••.• 0•••••• 'at ···•• Potnroplanthe left h1ch17 has••••• ePi,.a, 111 .,..Uon __ .ndeel.

tbat th1. vas 1m,poD.lne .JU1Ilct OD b1. part Y ..,

1'8•• 117 adldt.. Bat lY 1~m.t7•• -ar1DI uponIli. personal

qual1tlc.U,ou •• t '- ~"'4 1a*be lipt of 'be "&otlol1l oftt. C:O"anT·' _pern.80r. at the '1M. IoMWhatarpr181n117

'tou. the, tiel ..,\ n_ tile.. t.atr •• u.o.. AI varraUq aDT

Page 26: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

a..oip2t_ .,. ••.••,. tbaIl ftJtNl npJ'S••DU, •• II did. tbey

ftlud. tMa ••• d.•••• or 1MmmA07 aDd UDNU.ld.11t1

-.tftdent to pro't'Ob " •••• idler.tSoIl of hi. ,ual1tluUou tortbe AppnaUoe Pithl' ~.,. vldeh be vas tben •.•• , to • ~I

pNmt4t4 •

.A,art tI'ea ••• 1atraeU-. the.. 1. lID •• laed., pJ'OOt

of •••••••••• Ia).. •••••• •.t •. y ••• ,Qtt-•.••~.~,. ••a1&,._, .•t"rd.••,~•. _..,.,. ••';1».. tMlt1oJl.,tbe •• i_

. . . . .

' •• at'tbM~"·••••• .,: •• ,t..WU Orir.,.•. ,rioJ'tothe bear. he perro..... ,.tJ ldd.eh, .tbftIh _t olaaa1t1ed. ••

·1mol..-1D1 ,.raoaa1--.\Mt nth tbe palal1ow1tb1A ••• tton 20;.1"-.in na11t71a .•.•1ftcl m.-a, •• taot. o, •• t AaWre aDd. that

_414 aoW1t.bout ., ,..prl•••• 1' pW1a1 or1Uol. eo . mS••te4

to .h1II "' b.1•. npen180r.. !Dn. 1t appear. that 1a tIIlt GOlltext0' 11.1••• Un perio4ot Mm.•• ! _I.1ap••• la 1'''3 .taD4out b* MatfteoN •• 1.U•• u.oe,UGuia a 10JaI

. .••• u •••.••••• r.··.••• ~ •••• ~ft •• r •••••••••• ta.,., ••••\1•.•, -.• ",1UjpM1tT. to~u. .""pee of

· ••U•.•• d'lt- ·~teJ' •• U~ ••• J7-pertol'Ma" of 'be'

AppnaU•• lerrie.·t• ~o1t.(*ftOftr, Ji 't1ii iNiiii~6Y'aJIT

eft •••• OIl the.lIIJ •• t _ vq 'or _.u.r, tol'all veJmov

\he put NOOn. of ta. •••••••tu.l Id.••• r tor tbe lob ..,. ban .->/

\ '_enune4b7 .pal·or •••••••••• 1' 1D41•• t1onaor •.•• penclall111~·,1

We·haft BOt Oftrloo.4 tile tut ·tbat all ApPftIlt10e lem._JUD, 11ft]f. an AppNAU •• P1tter, ltpoll att.tn'tDi pl'Ot101_07 IIq

Page 27: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

M nqUre4 .,.:do:ra the work!l1uelt w1tbDut~41ate

••• n1.a1oa.\b.rillT"'IIIJ1bJ •...•• "-ui"iitYir'-itor;-'_' 'call ••• poa to to that, Jd.Jl4 of work vi tbout .oh _pern..1oJl 1.

oqUlAt of Uacdulrl1Dl u... •••• napGu1ld.lltl •• 1•••••••

•ar111 a •• ~.r or aoael pro,..., 111 wb1eh 1Jlt.,S.~.raotor.UttlO\\lt of 0,-,•• t1". P.t •• 1e,lt1llate17 ~ a

••~.f.a..ri~.t ••,.JIf1.r. 't.'liar vlth,_Hplope·•.•• !IDly.••.•••...ut, watt. it •••• to haW a .••• ,••-"U-irt. •.••ma t.U,'''n.t •••.•.••U1a 'W1.Pt ••• '

-UlLa haw n_1ft4 1\ he" haclte.ti • .,. of tbat Jda4 •••

pro •• d. But t.be AcJ'MMJlt OOIlWaplate. ,that auOh •• ot.louvU1 haft 80_ .IJ.tDUal t••tal bUi. aB4el.ar17 "quin.

_re 'ban .,eCl\llat1oa predicate. upcm twoJ' tbrM 180late4

1DatDoe. of lI1aOOJU1Uetnrtlle]'1' oo••• _d at the t1M aa a

po .••• 1'01' duJ1qaMD1or ld.4Mr oPJOrt\la1t7tor p~UOa

:lna raoJllUl 11M tor Id. 'l'O'n ••lo.l1.,." •...," .

VId.1e ".1I1UUM 'tIIaNeJl of proyJac .ay101aU. •• t ,,"."Acre_at ••••• _tll •• 1JJdoJl tbe 'tIIaNeJl ., ao1al toJ'Wu4

v1t1l Atr1e1eat m.••••• to Ibov prilla ta81. that t:M appo1lltMat

v.. •••• ill ooDtol'll1tT vlth tM ""ption .tate4 1.11SeOt1oD

20".11+ t.ll PJIOpelT_ tbe coap.,. •• ,tbI part7 wb10h 1J:IYoked

the pJlOY1.1oJl •• ato_ "aa t\ll17 oop1••• t of the Nai. for

the •• t10n 'taken. Uponu.. 11111ted proof •••• w an uaa'-l. to

ftD4 .1 tiler that'll laeke4 tile ncu1.1u ••111'" aDd peraoul

qua11fl.at1oD.a tor .,pobtMDt to tM 30b of Apprentice Sem.oeaan

Page 28: ARBITRATION CASE #6 DID THE COMPANY …REVIEW CASE FILE #84 - SAN FRANCISCO Dlv. GRIEVANCE #48 ARBITRATION CASE #6 DISQUALifiCATION Of SENIOR BIDDER ON PUBLIC CONTACT JOB. OPINION

01' 'Ut ·,De ..,lope .••••• tbe Je' ,0 ••••• 4 •• 11ft_tiona

ill ••• ,""'.' • ..,uior •• tbo •• 'of 'II •

aWIIiAoooN1DllT. __ ••• that •• CoIIpIDFcU.4 Y1ola_

U. ••~ ··or1e,tea1MW 1. 19J2 __ it ~. ·"au.ac>S.1~to,,.~.,,.,~;••.., $ - toJ' anola ••• tu~~"~t~"\"•.......1) ..•.•••••••••.~...:._,.~~'(~l..•........

I••••••,