1. It seemed to be a fact in this case that the second set of grievances was identical to the first. Might the arbitrator have held them arbitrable if they were slightly different?
2. If the union is foreclosed from carrying a certain issue to arbitration because it had once let a time limit lapse, it may result in some employee getting less money or fewer benefits than the contract calls for. In view of this apparent injustice, do you think the arbitrator should have decided the other way?
3. In view of the short time limit and the possibility that a lapse might foreclose the union from arbitrating important issues, would it be wise from the union's point of view to phrase every grievance as narrowly as possible so that the outcome of the case will apply to the individuals named and to no other? Would there be any disadvantages, from the union's viewpoint, of this policy?
4. Some grievances involve individuals and relatively small matters. Others may deal with important policy considerations that affect the whole workforce. Do you think that grievance procedures might establish different kinds of time limits for different types of grievances? How would you provide for this in contract language?