Are we contractually entitled to a copy of our injury report?

[tieguy]

You're right.
This goes to show how management couldn't care less about respecting our contract.

the district manager has a labor divison manager reporting to him or her and does not have a need to read and define the contract.

If you would like me to address your little crying spell about management not respecting "your" contract then reality is that your brothers do a poor job of respecting it also. About half of the grievances I deal with are fishing expeditions that are not supported by the contract. Some are your brothers not knowing the contract some is their trying to trail blaze and expand the definition or intent of the contract. If you actually count a grievance at the point prior to the submittal of paperwork when the employee or stewards start asking questions then about two thirds are not supported by the contract.

I think the best grievance I ever had was one a steward tried to give me from a driver who was complaining that he never got a copy of a previous grievance back from his steward. I wish i had kept a log of all the stupid grievances I've seen over the years i could probably write a book.

 

[JonFrum]

Here's the actual definition of a "grievance" from my New England Supplement. Other Supplements are no doubt similar. Notice it is broadly defined and, of course, mutually agreed to.

ARTICLE 48 --- GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Section 2 --- Grievances
A grievance is hereby jointly defined to be any controversy, complaint, misunderstanding or dispute arising as to interpretation, application or observance of any of the provisions of this Agreement or Supplements hereto.

Perhaps a criminal prosecutor must have a strong case before indicting someone on a misdemeanor or felony, but no such requirement is imposed on a grievant.

UPS is obligated to instruct all Management personel in the Contract's provisions because each member of Management is an agent of the higher Management Committee that signed the Agreement.

Management typically keeps its members in ignorance of the Contract so they will not feel constrained in their actions and decisions. Then when they are caught violating the Contract, the standard defense is "Oh, I didn't know the Contract said that." But Supervisors and Managers can not ignore or override the Contract any more than they can the provisions of the FMLA or any other law.

If the Teamsters were on the ball, they would have keep track of the total number of times members of Management claimed, or pretended, to be ignorant of the Contract's provisions, and filed Unfair Labor Practice charges against UPS. If UPS had no intention of obeying the Contract, if Management is proud of their record of Contract violations, if they are proud of their wilfull ignorance of Contract provisions, if it is all just a sham, then UPS is guilty of Bad Faith Bargaining at the least.

 

[Catatonic]

if Management is proud of their record of Contract violations, if they are proud of their wilfull ignorance of Contract provisions, if it is all just a sham, then UPS is guilty of Bad Faith Bargaining at the least.

I feel safe in saying Management is not proud. Maybe in a state of bliss but not proud.

 

[tieguy]

Here's the actual definition of a "grievance" from my New England Supplement. Other Supplements are no doubt similar. Notice it is broadly defined and, of course, mutually agreed to.

Perhaps a criminal prosecutor must have a strong case before indicting someone on a misdemeanor or felony, but no such requirement is imposed on a grievant.

UPS is obligated to instruct all Management personel in the Contract's provisions because each member of Management is an agent of the higher Management Committee that signed the Agreement.

Management typically keeps its members in ignorance of the Contract so they will not feel constrained in their actions and decisions. Then when they are caught violating the Contract, the standard defense is "Oh, I didn't know the Contract said that." But Supervisors and Managers can not ignore or override the Contract any more than they can the provisions of the FMLA or any other law.

If the Teamsters were on the ball, they would have keep track of the total number of times members of Management claimed, or pretended, to be ignorant of the Contract's provisions, and filed Unfair Labor Practice charges against UPS. If UPS had no intention of obeying the Contract, if Management is proud of their record of Contract violations, if they are proud of their wilfull ignorance of Contract provisions, if it is all just a sham, then UPS is guilty of Bad Faith Bargaining at the least.

the problem with that approach would be that ups would then file nlrb charges against the teamsters for all the bull**** grievances they recieve and the teamsters would reasonably be dodging two cases for every one they file.

I like your approach though. lets start firing teamsters for theft that try to expand applications of language beyone their original intent.

 

[JonFrum]

the problem with that approach would be that ups would then file nlrb charges against the teamsters for all the bull**** grievances they recieve and the teamsters would reasonably be dodging two cases for every one they file.

I like your approach though. lets start firing teamsters for theft that try to expand applications of language beyone their original intent.

The Local Union would normally weed out any bogus grievances before they were formally submitted to Management. In the rare instance where a bogus grievance was submitted, UPS would just deny it and put the ball back in the Union's court.

Besides, there is no NLRB Unfair Labor Practice charge that UPS could bring against the Teamsters for fileing excessive "bull**** grievances."

 

[tieguy]

The Local Union would normally weed out any bogus grievances before they were formally submitted to Management. In the rare instance where a bogus grievance was submitted, UPS would just deny it and put the ball back in the Union's court.

Besides, there is no NLRB Unfair Labor Practice charge that UPS could bring against the Teamsters for fileing excessive "bull**** grievances."

the problem is the local union does not weed out the BS grievances. I see the same mindset here on this site with the union rhetoric displayed. A strong steward will look a driver in the eye and tell him his grievance is BS. Very few are that strong. Most stewards don't like being the bad guy or are afraid that they will be accused of being a company suck up so they pass the BS grievances on and let me waste my time telling the guy that he is fishing with an empty hook.

here's another one for you. I have some training time in another building. I dress up in my browns grab a tractor and an empty trailer. drive to the building , do the training and come back with the same trailer. On the way up I stop at a popular breakfast stop and have breakfast with 5 of my drivers who are there at that time. Tell them what I have and what I am doing. One of my other drivers who is behind on his bills files a grievance on a fishing expedition hoping I was pulling a load up or back. I show the steward what I pulled and what I did and still get the grievance because my steward is afraid he might hear some crap from the driver. This stuff goes on all the time.

I laugh at you guys talking all your sanctimonious crap about the contract and integrity. If we could prosecute theft based off these grievances then I'd be walking a lot of your brothers out of here.

 

[JonFrum]

From your many posts over the years, it's clear you hate union members, especially those who are well informed and exercise their rights. So it doesn't surprise me that you are the recipient of so many grievances, and that you consider so many of them bogus. Perhaps you can give us a dozen or so examples?

Most employees who have questions or complaints find the Union rather difficult to deal with. The Union may tell the employee that he has no case, or that his case isn't worth fighting, or that it's not winable, or that he has let the time deadline pass, or he has failed to document the offences and corral the witnesses properly, or he has mishandled the situation prior to contacting the Union and has suposedly made a mess of any potential case. Normally the Union is all to quick to "blame the victim." I can't imagine many bogus grievances making it through the Union's obstacle course.

Regarding the grievance you mention, you seem to be deliberately setting up a situation that is designed to send false signals to everyone and thus trigger a grievance. Yo are posing as a feeder driver in browns and hauling a trailer round trip. I guess everyone is supose to assume you are only doing it for "training" purposes and assume it is the same trailer coming and going, or take your word for it. Another Supervisor would have driven up and back in his private car or hitched a ride with a feeder driver going that way.

Do they not have trailers at the destination building? Can you guarantee in advance the trailer will return with you? If plans changed and you had to leave the trailer at the destination, would you turn yourself in voluntarily and insist a union worker be paid for the day?

Because this is a "training" mission it is unusual and therefor debatable as a grievance. It is not a bogus grievance as some grievances are intended to clarify ambiguous situations. Normally hauling an empty trailer is union work and you know it. Are you wasting Company resources to set up an intentionally misleading show, hoping that someone will take the bait and file?

 

[tieguy]

From your many posts over the years, it's clear you hate union members, especially those who are well informed and exercise their rights. So it doesn't surprise me that you are the recipient of so many grievances, and that you consider so many of them bogus. Perhaps you can give us a dozen or so examples?

Most employees who have questions or complaints find the Union rather difficult to deal with. The Union may tell the employee that he has no case, or that his case isn't worth fighting, or that it's not winable, or that he has let the time deadline pass, or he has failed to document the offences and corral the witnesses properly, or he has mishandled the situation prior to contacting the Union and has suposedly made a mess of any potential case. Normally the Union is all to quick to "blame the victim." I can't imagine many bogus grievances making it through the Union's obstacle course.

Regarding the grievance you mention, you seem to be deliberately setting up a situation that is designed to send false signals to everyone and thus trigger a grievance. Yo are posing as a feeder driver in browns and hauling a trailer round trip. I guess everyone is supose to assume you are only doing it for "training" purposes and assume it is the same trailer coming and going, or take your word for it. Another Supervisor would have driven up and back in his private car or hitched a ride with a feeder driver going that way.

Do they not have trailers at the destination building? Can you guarantee in advance the trailer will return with you? If plans changed and you had to leave the trailer at the destination, would you turn yourself in voluntarily and insist a union worker be paid for the day?

Because this is a "training" mission it is unusual and therefor debatable as a grievance. It is not a bogus grievance as some grievances are intended to clarify ambiguous situations. Normally hauling an empty trailer is union work and you know it. Are you wasting Company resources to set up an intentionally misleading show, hoping that someone will take the bait and file?

Jon I made specific points about your union and its members not knowing the contract as well as you think and about their doing an extremely poor job of filtering out BS fishing expedition grievances. At this point you should probably thank me for the education but thanks are not required. This however is not a good time for you pout about my hatred of unions. In fact I fully appreciate unions I do not appreciate the union goon who comes on this site and brags about being a bad disruptive employee. Your pout at this time comes across as a concession speech.

 

[tieguy]

From your many posts over the years, it's clear you hate union members, especially those who are well informed and exercise their rights. So it doesn't surprise me that you are the recipient of so many grievances, and that you consider so many of them bogus. Perhaps you can give us a dozen or so examples?

Jon I'm dissapointed . You guys usually try to put up a better fight before you starting pouting. I do hate union members and if you had read my many posts you would know this . I do however despise the union goon mentallity where it is apparently ok to brag about being a crappy employee who lives to disrupt the operation every day.

Most employees who have questions or complaints find the Union rather difficult to deal with. The Union may tell the employee that he has no case, or that his case isn't worth fighting, or that it's not winable, or that he has let the time deadline pass, or he has failed to document the offences and corral the witnesses properly, or he has mishandled the situation prior to contacting the Union and has suposedly made a mess of any potential case. Normally the Union is all to quick to "blame the victim." I can't imagine many bogus grievances making it through the Union's obstacle course.

As previously outlined what you think the union is doing and what they are actually doing is not the same. I then gave you specific examples of the bull**** grievances that i have recieved. this is where you should have conceeded the point rather then beating your head against the same wall.

Regarding the grievance you mention, you seem to be deliberately setting up a situation that is designed to send false signals to everyone and thus trigger a grievance. Yo are posing as a feeder driver in browns and hauling a trailer round trip. I guess everyone is supose to assume youryou e only doing it for "training" purposes and assume it is the same trailer coming and going, or take your word for it. Another Supervisor would have driven up and back in his private car or hitched a ride with a feeder driver going that way.
Do they not have trailers at the destination building?ho Can you guarantee in advance the trailer will return with you? If plans changed and you had to leave the trailer at the destination, would you turn yourself in voluntarily and insist a union worker be paid for the day?

Because this is a "training" mission it is unusual and therefor debatable as a grievance. It is not a bogus grievance as some grievances are intended to clarify ambiguous situations. Normally hauling an empty trailer is union work and you know it. Are you wasting Company resources to set up an intentionally misleading show, hoping that someone will take the bait and file?

here again you display your weaknesses. Here again you do not know what you are talking about but like a good hard head you try to create something and thus you actually prove my point.

checkmate.

 

[upsgrunt]

here again you display your weaknesses. Here again you do not know what you are talking about but like a good hard head you try to create something and thus you actually prove my point.

checkmate.

Are you sure you read the right post?

 

[JonFrum]

Tie, please supply us with more examples of the bogus grievances you are burdened with so we can learn from your insight?

 

[Guy Smiley]

Tie. Total nonsense. Most managers have a copy of the contract in their desk and those that don't are instructed what or what not to do and how to do it because they are inept. Moreover the district manager negotiates the contract and tells the labor manager trms of a settlement. Furthermore, Pe Pro makes a common conern in that managementis coy about the contract.

 

[tieguy]

guy you're right , your post is total nonsense.

 

[tieguy]

Tie, please supply us with more examples of the bogus grievances you are burdened with so we can learn from your insight?

don't you think I've embarrassed you enough already?

 

[dave991]

Tie guy is hopping mad about something, do you remember the post you made a couple months ago (probably not, you post so many) that said alot of sups and P/T sups welcome grievances so that their job description and responcibilities can be better defined???? In other words their bosses will ask them to perform " union work" which is a clear violation of the contract. Yet when the parties sit down they try to explain it away as a frivilous, harmful grievance only meant to monetarily harm the company. Remember? Grievances not clearly defined by contract language CAN be helpful. The reason there are labor panels every month is because not every situation or action can be defined by a few hundred pages of language. The majority of employees simply want to perform well, get their pay, and try to get through the next week. I believe the same of the mgmt. When you get an over-aggressive person on either side of the fence that tries to abuse the system either for financial or career advancement reasons, it should be addressed. When you have employees being written up for BS reasons (in their opinion) you may get BS grievances (in your opinion). As a steward I can only advise an employee their grievance lacks merit, but according to our language I cant stop it, That is left up to the next level, much like when someone gets a bogus discipline we cant stop it just fight it at the next level. In closing, what you perceive as a BS grievance may be just that, but it may be part of a larger scale issue that does need to be addressed somewhere through the chain of command.

 

[tieguy]

Tie guy is hopping mad about something, do you remember the post you made a couple months ago (probably not, you post so many) that said alot of sups and P/T sups welcome grievances so that their job description and responcibilities can be better defined???? In other words their bosses will ask them to perform " union work" which is a clear violation of the contract. Yet when the parties sit down they try to explain it away as a frivilous, harmful grievance only meant to monetarily harm the company. Remember? Grievances not clearly defined by contract language CAN be helpful. The reason there are labor panels every month is because not every situation or action can be defined by a few hundred pages of language. The majority of employees simply want to perform well, get their pay, and try to get through the next week. I believe the same of the mgmt. When you get an over-aggressive person on either side of the fence that tries to abuse the system either for financial or career advancement reasons, it should be addressed. When you have employees being written up for BS reasons (in their opinion) you may get BS grievances (in your opinion). As a steward I can only advise an employee their grievance lacks merit, but according to our language I cant stop it, That is left up to the next level, much like when someone gets a bogus discipline we cant stop it just fight it at the next level. In closing, what you perceive as a BS grievance may be just that, but it may be part of a larger scale issue that does need to be addressed somewhere through the chain of command.

Posters here cry about the sanctity of the contracts language then try to defend their attempts to expand that language beyond its original intent. Its attempted theft and it can't be defended. You guys enjoy using the contract to hold us accountable but hate it when we do the same in reverse. If its ok to stretch the language as you and jon try to defend from your side then its certainly alright for my side to do the same.

 

[dave991]

There is no crying in the cafe, I will agree both sides try to stretch the language in an attempt to better their working conditions. The only difference (I see) is that our side is trying to put more comprehensive language that can apply to more situational things that can happen, your side (again in my opinion) attemps to blur the line or remove so-called constrictive language so they may not have any restrictions at all.

 

[tieguy]

There is no crying in the cafe, I will agree both sides try to stretch the language in an attempt to better their working conditions. The only difference (I see) is that our side is trying to put more comprehensive language that can apply to more situational things that can happen, your side (again in my opinion) attemps to blur the line or remove so-called constrictive language so they may not have any restrictions at all.

We're almost in agreement that both sides stretch the language to suit their needs which is where I was with this issue a few posts back. There is a smugness here that the union has somehow maintained the integrity of the contract when reality is that you have many crap house lawyers in the ranks who will try to stretch the language any way they can to steal a financial reward. The contract was designed to be the ground rules it was never intended to be a lottery ticket where you win something if you can come up with the right arguement.

 

[JonFrum]

The purpose of the grievance process is to enforce the Contract when a provision is being violated, or to get a clarification of a vague provision or situation. Neither side can successfully use the grievance process to advance their cause by creating new benefits for their side.

Decisions in the grievance process ultimately are made by the same people who negotiated the language in the first place. And the decisions are made by agreement by both sides, Management and Labor. New gains can't be achieved unless the Contract is reopened and renegotiated by mutual agreement.

Nor can gains be made in arbitration. Arbitrators have no authority to create new benefits. They can only apply existing language. "You can't get in arbitration what you didn't get in negotiation."

Your hatred of Union members is causing you to imagine we are using the grievance process to steal from the Company.

Earlier your hatred of Union members caused you to imagine that all sorts of bogus grievances were being filed, causing you personal distress. I asked you for actual examples, because I thought you were just imagining things, and you haven't given us any examples yet. Now I'm asking you for examples of employees using the grievance proceedure to steal from the Company.

Suppose a grievant wanted to increase his pay by just one penny per hour. How would he successfully use the grievance process to "steal" the penny? What clause would he cite that UPS was violating? What language would he cite to justify his newly found "right" to the penny? I doubt you could even put such a grievance into words on paper.