Article 22.3 to feeder driver

[Shadow999]

Our center is part of Central States. We have a situation where a 22.3 has gone into feeders. His bid date was in 2001, but his combination job seniority is 1999. He did not receive any back pay, but his pension begins to be in affect in 1999. The seniority of the youngest feeder driver is 2000.
My question is, who has seniority? I was told that there was some kind of aribtration that dealt with this problem, but no one can produce any evidence of the decision. Has anyone else faced this problem?
In our center when you go into feeders from another full time position you maintain your seniority.
Thanks for any help.

 

[JonFrum]

The Article 22.3 Arbitration and the First Year and Second Year Agreements are here:
http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f39/question-about-22-3-jobs-295017/index4.html#post691917

There are also several Article 22.3 threads on Browncafe, as well as numerous articles on the TDU website here:
http://www.tdu.org/view/ups

A 1999 Seniority Date beats a 2000 Date. What's the controversy? 1999 is his true full-time Seniority Date.

But I wonder why he didn't recieve any back pay? Wasn't his job designated a "Year Two" job with a Seniority Date of 8/1/1999?

 

[Dark_Team_135]

But I wonder why he didn't recieve any back pay? Wasn't his job designated a "Year Two" job with a Seniority Date of 8/1/1999?

Maybe he made more as a part-timer than he would have if he was full time that first year...That is what would have happened to me. There were opportunities for as much overtime as you could work before the combo jobs and I figured I made well over the amount I would have if they figured the back pay at 40 straight time hours per week for the year.. They won't let us combos here get even a minute of overtime today. I wonder if they would have made me pay them back the difference . I would have liked the 1998 full time seniority date and pension credit though...

 

[Shadow999]

I do not know why he did not receive any back pay, but if it makes a difference he was awarded the job because there was still one to give under the contract. The rest were given more than a year earlier and they received back pay....Tks for the link I will check it out.

 

[JonFrum]

Maybe he made more as a part-timer than he would have if he was full time that first year...That is what would have happened to me. There were opportunities for as much overtime as you could work before the combo jobs and I figured I made well over the amount I would have if they figured the back pay at 40 straight time hours per week for the year.. They won't let us combos here get even a minute of overtime today. I wonder if they would have made me pay them back the difference . I would have liked the 1998 full time seniority date and pension credit though...

When calculating backpay, each week was calculated individually. So any initial Article 22.3 bidder with a designated "Year One" or "Year Two" job would get backpay for whatever weeks they worked less than 40 hours, even if they otherwise got lots of overtime.

They also got retroactive full-time contributions to their Pension and Health & Welfare Funds.

"Year One" jobs have a Seniority Date of 8/1/1998. "Year Two" jobs have a Seniority Date of 8/1/1999 (or Company Hire Date, if latter.)

 

[Shadow999]

So, he can use his 1999 seniority date when bidding into another classification?

 

[blaeux35]

So, he can use his 1999 seniority date when bidding into another classification?

no. in central states seniority is by department.

 

[JonFrum]

no. in central states seniority is by department.

But Shadow999 specifically said in his original post: "In our center when you go into feeders from another full time position you maintain your seniority."

The debate was about the retroactive seniority date of an Article 22.3 bidder.

 

[blaeux35]

But Shadow999 specifically said in his original post: "In our center when you go into feeders from another full time position you maintain your seniority."

The debate was about the retroactive seniority date of an Article 22.3 bidder.

nm

 

[Shadow999]

Thanks for the clarification...I'm sure this has already been an issue somewhere else where department seniority is not recognized.