Although a court may find that a contractual provision is subject to multiple interpretations, such a finding by a court does not by itself render a contractual provision to be ambiguous. State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5, 2005 Ohio 3095, at P11, 829 N.E.2d 690. In Porterfield, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained: In recent years, Ohio courts have devoted many pages to discussions of whether contracts, ballot initiatives, statutes, or even constitutional provisions are ambiguous. However, no clear standard has evolved to determine the level of lucidity necessary for a writing to be unambiguous. Some courts have reasoned that when multiple readings are possible, the provision is ambiguous. The problem with this approach is that it results in courts' reading ambiguities into provisions, which creates confusion and uncertainty. When confronted with allegations of ambiguity, a court is to objectively and thoroughly examine the writing to attempt to ascertain its meaning. Only when a definitive meaning proves elusive should rules for construing ambiguous language be employed. Otherwise, allegations of ambiguity become self-fulfilling. Id. Consequently, when examining the collective bargaining agreement between ODRC and the union, we must "objectively and thoroughly" examine this agreement to determine its meaning, and only when a definitive meaning proves elusive should we employ rules for construing ambiguous language. Id. Article 25.01(A) of the collective bargaining agreement between ODRC and the union provides in part: "A grievance is defined as any difference, complaint or dispute between the Employer and the Union or any employee regarding the application, meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. The grievance procedure shall be the exclusive method of resolving grievances."