We mutually agreed that there was no interpretive dispute between the parties at the National level as to the meaning and intent of Article 19 of the National Agreement as it relates to the injury compensation program. Specifically the grievant is contending that she was charged with an occupational illness instead of a traumatic injury and that because of her injury she should have been authorized continuation of her pay. We believe that the provisions of Part 541.2 of the Employee and Labor Relations Manual are quite clear in defining the difference between a traumatic injury and an occupational illness. Also, the conditions of COP are clearly defined. The ,issue in this case is a matter of application, not interpretation. Accordingly, as further agreed, this case is hereby remanded to Step 3 for further processing, based upon the fact circumstances, by the parties at that level. (Document unsigned by Union Representative)
Document Type: Step 4 Agreement
APWU National Grievance Number: H1C3WC6641
Craft: Clerk