Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Termination for posting on youtube or facebook
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="soberups" data-source="post: 887277" data-attributes="member: 14668"><p>In order for that termination to be upheld, either a union panel member or an arbitrator would have to define the cardinal infraction of "<strong>willful, wanton or malicious damage to the employers property</strong>" to include taking a photograph of a poor load. I cannot imagine any panel or arbitrator ever interpreting the contract language in such a ridiculous manner. Furthermore, it is entirely likely that an employee who was fired and ultimately reinstated on such a ridiculous charge would be entitled to back pay. Hoaxter makes a legitimate point about how "damage" might be legally interpreted in a <em>court of law</em>, but the merits of a termination are <em>not decided </em>in a court of law..... they are decided in a <em>panel hearing</em> or, failing that, before an arbitrator who deals in<em> labor law </em>rather than criminal or corporate law.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soberups, post: 887277, member: 14668"] In order for that termination to be upheld, either a union panel member or an arbitrator would have to define the cardinal infraction of "[B]willful, wanton or malicious damage to the employers property[/B]" to include taking a photograph of a poor load. I cannot imagine any panel or arbitrator ever interpreting the contract language in such a ridiculous manner. Furthermore, it is entirely likely that an employee who was fired and ultimately reinstated on such a ridiculous charge would be entitled to back pay. Hoaxter makes a legitimate point about how "damage" might be legally interpreted in a [I]court of law[/I], but the merits of a termination are [I]not decided [/I]in a court of law..... they are decided in a [I]panel hearing[/I] or, failing that, before an arbitrator who deals in[I] labor law [/I]rather than criminal or corporate law. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Termination for posting on youtube or facebook
Top