ups1990
Well-Known Member
"Down goes Frazier..."
It Appears I'm Being Fired - Please help...
- Thread starter Livin the Dream?
- Start date
If the steward asks management in advance what the charges are, and the company refuses to answer because it will spoil their surprise, then the steward may have to wait until the company reveals its hand during the first few moments of the meeting. Then the steward should stop the meeting before the driver speaks and have a private conversation with the driver outside the office.
But if management and the steward instead sat as a panel of judges and allowed the victim to walk into the trap unaware, then this is an ambush.
At a subsequent panel, if it comes to that, the unethical entrapment will generate sympathy for the driver, as will the fact that his house burned down, and the fact that he had no knowledge of the license suspension.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Tie
I agree. I think the steward got caught unaware. The proper response though would have been to have some private time with the driver out side of the office to confer and to become aware of what the driver knows about the situation. I have had to use that right several times over the last few years.
d
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
A steward always has the right to privately speak to the employee prior to any investigative interview.
Livin the Dream?
Disillusioned UPSer
In the few minutes after I was asked "do you have anything you want to tell us" I must have looked like a G__ D____ idiot. Steward (guy I like personally) said nothing. I told them of a few personal things going on that I am now pissed off / embarrassed to have told them.
Nobody told me to be quiet or keep my mouth shut. I told the complete 100% truth, but now truth that I realize in nobody's business at work.
Everything stated here is the same as I told UPS. Don't think I left anything out (actually, this helped to get my thoughts together).
I sincerely thank you.
Nobody told me to be quiet or keep my mouth shut. I told the complete 100% truth, but now truth that I realize in nobody's business at work.
Everything stated here is the same as I told UPS. Don't think I left anything out (actually, this helped to get my thoughts together).
I sincerely thank you.
stevetheupsguy
sʇǝʌǝʇɥǝndsƃnʎ
My best advice to you, even though someone else will have to relay this to you, is always keep your mouth shut. Let the Steward speak for you and if he doesn't, say nothing. When called into the office, mgmt always tries to bait me and I used to spew. This brought me nothing but trouble so now I do like George Costanza and do everything the opposite way than I normally would.
UnconTROLLed
perfection
Well said. That is the most valuable lesson I learned when terminated and in the office with the local heirarchy. Say the least that you have to when asked and answer the question as though you are in a court of law on the stand. Let the steward speak on your behalf (that is why the steward or rep needs to speak to you beforehand, to have an idea of WHAT needs to be said on your behalf). Seems that part failed in BBAG's case!
satellitedriver
Moderator
LTD,
BS.
SD
BS.
SD
tieguy
Banned
perhaps I'm wrong.
I know the employees weingarten rights entitle him to have a steward present. I'm not aware of any mandates that say the steward has the right to interrupt an investigative interview to privately coach the employee on what he will and will not say. Perhaps someone can point me to the legal language that gives him that right.
tieguy
Banned
I disagree as pointed out in my previous post but I'm willing to consider opposing points supported by legal or contractual language.
In the meantime it appears the investigative interview was to the employees benifit since he was not discharged on the spot.
Realistically the interviewers thought it odd that this guy would be driving around for five months on a suspended license. They interviewed him and recieved a credible explanation. At that point rather then discharge him they allowed him sufficent time to address the issue and provide supporting documentation that supported his explanation.
If the steward had tried to strong arm this interview its possible the guy would have been discharged on the spot for driving on a suspended license at which point the union would have had to fight to get him reinstated. Since he did in fact drive on a suspended license for five months its possible the union may have had to settle for a time served settlement to get him reinstated.
I have personally seen stewards try to coach employees into specific types of explanations which then collapsed under investigative scrutiny. If the steward is a wily old pro like Danny then it might work well for him to provide private counsel. If its someone not as experienced then the private coaching could end up backfiring.
Thus my point without knowing more about the case that the proceedings as they involved may actually have evolved with the most favorable outcome possible.
tieguy
Banned
I agree. I also think they realize that there are extenuating circumstances involved which is why they did not drop the hammer on him.
I'm amazed that anyone here believes a thing this guy posts. What do you think his next crisis/trolling effort is gonna be? Based on the number of posters who swallowed this one hook, line and sinker I give it an 8/10.
Who says we believe anything that he posts? I'm just bored and responded with a comment.
I wasn't picking on you, you just posted last
stevetheupsguy
sʇǝʌǝʇɥǝndsƃnʎ
satellitedriver
Moderator
Nah, if
only he would lose the BS. he might gain weight in BC.
Well, let's start with these exerpts from Article 4 of the Contract. Note how it says "active involvement" and "representation." The Steward is not just window dressing, or just a passive witness to the events.
ARTICLE 4 --- STEWARDS
"The Employer recognizes the right of the Local Union to designate Job Stewards and alternates from the Employer’s seniority list."
"Recognizing the importance of the role of the Union Steward in resolving problems or disputes between the Employer and its employees, the Employer reaffirms its commitment to the active involvement of union stewards in such processes in accordance with the terms of this Article."
"Upon notification to his or her supervisor, a steward shall be afforded the right to leave his/her work area for a reasonable period of time to investigate, present and process grievances and to represent a fellow employee concerning grievances or discipline so long as such activity does not interrupt the Employer’s operations. The Employer will make a reasonable effort to insure that its operations are not interrupted by the steward’s engaging in such activity. The Employer shall not use interruption of its operation as a subterfuge for denying such right to the steward."
"The Employer recognizes the employee’s right to be given requested representation by a Steward, or the designated alternate, at such time as the employee reasonably contemplates disciplinary action."
- - - - -
A difficult manager may withhold the intent of a meeting until he has to reveal it during his opening statement or question. But he is not entitled to any response by the accused. The accused is under no obligation to assist in his own entrapment. If the manager then wants to fire the employee, he must have "cause," and follow proceedure, and must be prepared to prove his case at the panel. On discharge cases, the burden of proof is on management.
Stewards are management's equals when in the office representing an employee. The full extent of steward's rights is spelled out in numerous statements and decisions by the NLRB, which await your perusal.
