Retaliation Lawsuit Allowed to Proceed

Discussion in 'UPS Discussions' started by skgold, Dec 10, 2010.

  1. skgold

    skgold New Member

    In a decision handed down yesterday, a federal court in California allowed a former UPS package driver (17-year veteran) to proceed with his retaliation and wrongful termination lawsuit. Driver alleged he was fired in retaliation for exercising his right to file and prosecute overtime grievances and for complaining about workplace safety, i.e., excessive stops and on-road hours. UPS argued the court lacked jurisdiction and the claims were preempted by the NLRA and LMRA, among other arguments. The case will now proceed to trial. A good result for UPSers who dare to fight for their rights.
     
  2. LagunaBrown

    LagunaBrown Well-Known Member

    Nice to see someone standing up for what is right! The company feels the allocated driver rate of $56.21 is too high so they have a right to abuse us. If we get hurt we have great benefits so ditch the old and get a fresh replacement. How many drivers out there feel management only cares about the numbers and not safety? They have no one to blame but themselves, I mean they agreed to the contract in the first place but they take it out on us verbally and physically every day..... I bet if there was more respect for employee relations this would never gone to court. Welcome to the new U.P.S. and good luck with your trial.
     
  3. upsemployee

    upsemployee New Member

    I would have to agree that management retaliates once a grievance is filed. Management starts with ride alongs, 10 point commentary word for word, on road observations basically waiting for you to do wrong so they can right you up and that's the way they RETALIATE until you back down.
     
  4. Signature Only

    Signature Only Blue in Brown

    I agree. In every area of life I've experienced, most people just want fair and just treatment. Given the time, expense and challenge of taking on any corporation, a tremendous amount of abuse is necessary to push someone into court.
     
  5. Returntosender

    Returntosender Well-Known Member

    The company is going to want to settle. They don't want this going to court becuase if the plantiff wins the case. Now this case becomes precedent for all other retaliation lawsuits against UPS by ex-employees with a smiliar case. Case law might also favor the plantiff.
     
  6. LagunaBrown

    LagunaBrown Well-Known Member

    Is the decision made public? Being from SoCal I would like to read it, maybe even post it on LagunaBrown.com or show it to management.
     
  7. steamroll

    steamroll Member

    as karma approaches, shame on the ups center management team for unlawfull wrongfull termination of this former ups employee and also the former ups pkg car driver's i.b.t. local ups coordinator - business agent for not giving this former ups employee his d.f.r. (duty of fair representation), JUSTICE FOR YOU MY FORMER U.P.S. PACKAGE CAR DRIVER FRIEND. I used to preload with you when you were a part time ups preloader.
     
  8. hypocrisy

    hypocrisy Banned

    Could we get the case number or name of the driver involved? I'd like to follow this. PM please if you don't want to post.
     
  9. FracusBrown

    FracusBrown Ponies and Planes

    I'm not taking sides or making judgement, but all this means is the case didn't get thrown out.
     
  10. dadelous

    dadelous New Member

    this is what upsers need, a spark to ignite fair treatment for all, that we may be able to stand up for our rights and not be persecuted for doing so. reduce the amount of stress associated with an already stressful career, it"s ironic to ever think that we knew where this company was headed years ago we wouldn't have complained then. that we would actually long for the "good ol" days".
     
  11. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    not only that but....(gasp) the california courts have decided to allow the driver to apparently ignore binding arbitration processes in place, bypass the nlrb and go straight to the money pot court system of california. Who would have thunk it.

    At this point UPS probably should give the person some payoff just to avoid the miscarriage of justice that awaits them in the hostile anti corporation court system of california.

    Any wonder corporations are leaving california in droves?
     
  12. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    California rulings do, however, tend to reverberate through the country. All the Fedex Ground mis-classification law-suits began there.
     
  13. LagunaBrown

    LagunaBrown Well-Known Member

    I am sure U.P.S. had plenty of chances to avoid this but didn't and the California Judicial system is not the problem here, it's how U.P.S. treats employee's. A supervisor in Laguna was awarded nearly 21 million in his wrongful-termination suit so it's not just about union members. We can't deny the problems exist or hearing about these actions because they are posted on Browncafe.com all the time.. If U.P.S. treat their Lawyers like the employee's so I am sure they are demanding a win vs. this case ( even if impossible) or they will fire them and find someone who can.
     
  14. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I tend to disagree. I think the california court system is the problem there. Perhaps the driver can share his settlement with the next people to lose their jobs there due to corporations fleeing your state.

    It takes so much time and effort to fire this driver through the normal processes. Yet somehow the driver was abused when we sat him down a zillon times and told him to get his mind right.

    I could be wrong though. Was every driver who complained in california fired by UPS or was there something special about this guy?
     
  15. LagunaBrown

    LagunaBrown Well-Known Member

    I don't care what the situation is. If the procedure was done correctly he/she would have no case, because the documentation would be there and the case thrown out. Something had to be fishy.
     
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    I dont think the driver being allowed to sue ups in california means he has a case. And I do thank you for being honest when you say you dont care about corporations leaving californias hostile court system and labor climate.

    In this case the driver should be forced to go through the processes in place before he is allowed to go fishing in california's liberal court system. For some reason you guys love to preach contract only when he benifits you to do so. If you dont want binding arbitration then dont negotiate it.
     
  17. INTHEOC

    INTHEOC New Member

    Dear TieGuy,

    Were you personally present during the process? Do you know this driver personally? Did you handle or manage the case to know that he didn't follow procedures? If not, I suggest you do your research before you opine about this driver. Obviously you didn't because you would have learned that the California court system is limited to the State of California and that federal courts have jurisdiction nationwide regardless of where the case is filed. Also, you would have learned that a federal judge has allowed the case to proceed because legal grounds exist. Federal judges staff law clerks to conduct extensive research so as to assist them before issuing a ruling. Obviously, the driver has legal grounds to make his case. If it were a frivolous case, it would have been rejected.

    I know the driver and I can tell you from a personal standpoint that he followed procedures, in place by UPS, and that he exhausted all of the administrative remedies to absolutely no avail. He demanded the policies, read them and questioned them and made his arguments to UPS, the Union and the Boards. He fought for what was right. Good for the driver who did not allow himself to be intimidated! An excellent example of how to exercise your rights! I hope that if any good comes out of this, it is that UPS learns to value its employees and treat them like human beings.

    Mr. Tieguy, I suggest you sit through the trial. You might learn something before you voice your next assumption.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2010
  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    why yes a saint in the making no doubt. since you have such personal knowledge could you educate me?

    Did his case go to an arbitrator?

    how many times was he discharged, suspended and how many times did he recieve a warning letter before the discharge finally stuck?

    what was he thinking the company was telling him during all those endless discussions of his performance?
     
  19. pretzel_man

    pretzel_man Well-Known Member

    At first I didn't believe this, but I did find it online. However, I would not put this supervisor up as a poster boy to support your position.

    Was he retaliated against? Absolutely. He got the age old discipline, told to work the night sort (or preload).

    He was a BD supervisor who felt that the methods for charging oversized packages were incorrect. He helped a customer write a letter of complaint. This of course upset his management and they took him out of BD. Made him work the "graveyard" shift.

    What did he do then? Falsified records to keep from looking bad on a report. He changed timecards....

    As I said, was he retaliated against? Of course. Given bad assignments. Of course.

    However, he chose to falsify the timecards himself. He caused that himself.
     
  20. INTHEOC

    INTHEOC New Member

    Oh I see, you must be in management.

    Ok, really, Tieguy? Are you going to continue to write about something of which you know nothing? Because the only thing you're proving is that you know NOTHING - about this case anyway.

    FYI I do know that this driver had not been disciplined or suspended, otherwise UPS would have proved it but they FAILED to do so. Yes, that's right, UPS proved nothing! And yes, this case went through its proper channels.

    Jumping to conclusions without any facts is dangerous and it makes a person look personally and professionally unreasonable. Do yourself a favor and wait until the outcome before you write about this any further.

    Happy Holidays!
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2010