5 a) If I were on the School Board I would not have agreed to the issue framed for the arbitrator. I believe that the issue was not neutral, rather that it favored the association and Ms. Kimball. Statements in the issue such as, ."..
when the grievance absented herself from work for illness... ." , support Kimball's argument. In the Position of the School District section of the handout, the School Board states that when Kimball called in to report the absence she simply informed the district "that she would not be in." In my opinion, this should have replaced the prior statement of her calling out "due to illness." I also think that the School Board should not have agreed to the issue starting with the question "Was the School District wrong... ." this automatically influences the arbitrator to question the School Board's decision. The issue could have either been changed to impose the question of Kimball being wrong, or to a question of a neutral sort. If I were the School Board I would have proposed this issue to the arbitrator: Should Denise Kimball be paid for Tuesday and Wednesday, April 3 and 4, after calling to inform her place of employment "that she would not be in" due to the Three Mile Island Incident of March 30, 1979? I feel that this issue is not only factual but puts weight in the School Board's argument.
5 b) Although I do not believe that the issue to the arbitrator was fair to the School Board, if I were the arbitrator, I would have ruled for the association and Ms. Kimball. I feel based on the severity of The Three Mile Incident and the fact that Kimball had a legit ament note from a physician with a diagnosis of "environmental stress, emotional stress, and anxiety", that she should be paid for the days missed. This right is upheld by the Applicable Pennsylvania Statutes: School Laws of Pennsylvania under Section 1154, which is covered in the handout. The School Board's argument of "she was not sick on the days in question" covered in the Position of the School District section of the handout is pure opinion.
The opinion of the School Board, in comparison to a letter from physician, has no weight in the situation. If there were any facts to back up the School Board's statement they would have been taken into account. The lack of these facts, along with the diagnosis from a creditable physician and support from the laws and regulations of the state reinforce my decision to rule in favor of the association.