Rendered before/after
I’d go with past practice
They’re actually isn’t any past practice yet. The original buyout still has not been agreed to and is still being litigated and going through the grievance procedure.. the first time the union filed all these grievances under the national language, which is not as strong as the central. Those original grievances have to be arbitrated most likely in May.. the company knows they still have liability, but they’re hoping since they pushed it through without asking that they’re given forgiveness they most likelydon’t care about the ramifications of the people who actually took them because they’re off the hook and can force that money to be returned if they want to, if those people signed an agreement like the one currently being challenged. Pretty sneaky on the companies part. They have no liability and the people that signed those agreements have all the liability.
I’d go with past practice
They’re actually isn’t any past practice yet. The original buyout still has not been agreed to and is still being litigated and going through the grievance procedure.. the first time the union filed all these grievances under the national language, which is not as strong as the central. Those original grievances have to be arbitrated most likely in May.. the company knows they still have liability, but they’re hoping since they pushed it through without asking that they’re given forgiveness they most likelydon’t care about the ramifications if they lose of the people who actually took them because they’re off the hook and can force that money to be returned if they want to, if those people signed an agreement like the one currently being challenged. Pretty sneaky on the companies part. They have no liability and the people that signed those agreements have all the liability.