Has anyone heard of this nonsense? To make a long story short, an individual was fired. The company made an offer to bring the individual back under a last and final. The employee did not feel comfortable signing a last and final because this was their first offense for an alleged work place violence. The individual received advice from a reputable source that stated that the employee could sign the last and final under protest, write the protest on the last and final, and file a grievance. Initially the business agent did not have a clue about filing a protest and actually told the member they could not do it only to look like a fool later. The company initially rejected the individual from signing a protest only to back track and allow the employee to sign the last and final under protest. Mind you there were two individuals involved in the last and final, while the individual that actually committed the work place violence signed the last and final on Monday, the victim signed the last and final under protest on Tuesday. The company agreed to his protest and worked until the end of the week when the individual received a phone call from the business agent stating the individual was fired again. The individual wanted to know why and the business agent later stated because the individual signed on the wrong line of the last and final. Initially the business agent stated the company did not like the individual writing the protest on the last and final because the protest in essence voided the last and final. The business agent stated they were not comfortable with the protest but the reputable source is saying the employee is within their right even though the union negotiated a bad deal for the individual. The business agent is now saying the employee options are A. Sign the last and final. B. Sign under protest maybe but not write the protest out. or C. Take it to the panel. The employee already wanted to take it to the panel but the company decided other wise. Anyone hear of this kind of nonsense?