The complainant applied for a resolution of a dispute over the implementation of a previous Board order that directed the union to submit his discharge to arbitration.
The complainant sought to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing at the union's expense, rather than by the union's representative.
The Board held that this request did not raise a matter of implementation, but rather sought a remedy that had already been refused in the original hearing.
The Board further held that even if treated as an application for reconsideration, it would be denied as there was no evidence that the union representative would fail to fulfill his duty of fair representation at the arbitration.
