MEMORANDUM OPINION

PETER J. MESSITTE, District Judge.

Having considered Defendant Verizon Maryland, Inc.'s ("Verizon's") Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 14, as well as Plaintiffs Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, District 2-13 and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 2108's (collectively "CWA's") Counter-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 25, the Court has determined to decide the case on the papers. See Loc. R. 105.6. Accordingly, the Oral Argument set for November 25, 2019 is cancelled.

The Court finds Plaintiff CWA's arguments are well-taken and Defendant Verizon's are not. The underlying grievance submitted by CWA to Verizon on August 23, 2016 complaining of "unfair treatment," ECF No. 1-7, of Verizon employee and CWA member, Barry Hill, plainly invokes Article 11 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), which governs non-discrimination, including discrimination against an employee "because of his activities in behalf of the Union," ECF No. 1-2 (CBA Article 11, Section 1). As such, the issue is arbitrable pursuant to the CBA, which states that the CWA may submit a grievance to arbitration if it involves an "interpretation or application of any of the terms" of the CBA. Id. (CBA Article 12, Section 4). The Court rejects Verizon's argument that the underlying grievance is exclusively an interpretation of the Regional Attendance Plan ("RAP").

A separate Order will ISSUE.