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
UPS Wrongly fired Driver for Union Activities but stays fired due to Facebook postings
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="badsporh" data-source="post: 4304668" data-attributes="member: 9407"><p>A little bit of the backstory: </p><p></p><p>Back in May of this year (2019) the NLRB issued an invitation to file briefs in RA's case in regard to whether they should remove the postarbitral deferral standard announced in Babcock & Wilcox (which favors working men and women) and go back to the previous Olin standard (which does not favor working men and women).</p><p></p><p>In Babcock, the Board announced a new standard for deferring to arbitral </p><p>decisions in cases alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Under this </p><p>standard, if the arbitration procedures appear to have been fair and regular, and if the parties agreed to be bound, the Board will defer to an arbitral decision if ●☆the party urging deferral☆●(this is generally the company) shows that:</p><p> (1) the arbitrator was explicitly authorized to decide the unfair labor practice issue</p><p>(2) the arbitrator was presented with and considered the statutory issue, or was prevented from doing so by the party opposing deferral.</p><p>(3) Board law reasonably permits the award.</p><p></p><p>Under Spielberg/Olin the Board deferred to an arbitration/joint panel award or decision when:</p><p>(1) the arbitration proceedings were fair and regular</p><p>(2) all parties agreed to be bound by the decision</p><p>(3) the arbitral decision was not repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act.</p><p></p><p>Further, the arbitral forum must have considered the unfair labor practice issue. The Board deemed the unfair labor practice issue to have been adequately considered if: </p><p>(1) the contractual issue was factually parallel to the unfair labor practice issue.</p><p>(2) the arbitrator was presented generally with the facts relevant to resolving the unfair labor </p><p>practice issue.</p><p>●☆The burden of proof rested with the party opposing deferral☆● (this is generally a rank and file union members).</p><p></p><p>The NLRB General Counsel's office has issued their own brief in favor of returning to Spielberg/Olin....showing that they are in fact sadly on the side of big business.</p><p></p><p>Others who filed a brief in favor of Spielberg/Olin were the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the law offices of Frost, Brown, Todd (UPS's legal counsel).</p><p></p><p>Filing briefs in favor of retaining the Babcock and Wilcox standard on behalf of RA and all union members were RA's attorney Cathy Highet and also The Association for Union Democracy.</p><p></p><p>Below I've attach links to all of these briefs and the NLRB decision soliciting these briefs.</p><p></p><p>Solidarity</p><p></p><p>P.S. Thank you to Board member Lauren McFerran for offering a dissent to the Board's decision to attempt to do away with Babcock and Wilcox. She is the loan voice defending working men and women remaining on the Board and she is doing a fantastic job.</p><p></p><p>P.S.S. Also thank you to the Association for Union Democracy for writing a brief defending Babcock and Wilcox. They are excellent defenders of the rank and file!</p><p></p><p>P.S.S.S. And as always, thank you to RA's attorney Cathy Highet. This case would have never made it past the Pittsburgh Regional office with RA's charges if it wasn't for her. If you click the link below for the brief that she wrote, it's very evident what an amazingly gifted and talented legal mind that she is.</p><p></p><p>Link to RA's case:</p><p><a href="https://www.nlrb.gov/case/06-CA-143062" target="_blank">NLRB | Public Website</a></p><p></p><p>Direct link to Board Decision requesting briefs:</p><p><a href="http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582b3fc2e" target="_blank">http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582b3fc2e</a></p><p></p><p>General Counsel's Brief:</p><p><a href="http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcdc77" target="_blank">http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcdc77</a></p><p></p><p>RA's attorney Cathy Highet's brief:</p><p><a href="http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcfa84" target="_blank">http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcfa84</a></p><p></p><p>The Association for Union Democracy's brief:</p><p><a href="http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcf982" target="_blank">http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcf982</a></p><p></p><p>UPS attorneys Frost, Brown,Todd's brief:</p><p><a href="http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bce30e" target="_blank">http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bce30e</a></p><p></p><p>The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America's brief:</p><p>[MEDIA=googledrive]0B5QDERfr3nSneTBDNzc0czF1M0x1bWE3dE9iVS15UktWejJn[/MEDIA]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="badsporh, post: 4304668, member: 9407"] A little bit of the backstory: Back in May of this year (2019) the NLRB issued an invitation to file briefs in RA's case in regard to whether they should remove the postarbitral deferral standard announced in Babcock & Wilcox (which favors working men and women) and go back to the previous Olin standard (which does not favor working men and women). In Babcock, the Board announced a new standard for deferring to arbitral decisions in cases alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Under this standard, if the arbitration procedures appear to have been fair and regular, and if the parties agreed to be bound, the Board will defer to an arbitral decision if ●☆the party urging deferral☆●(this is generally the company) shows that: (1) the arbitrator was explicitly authorized to decide the unfair labor practice issue (2) the arbitrator was presented with and considered the statutory issue, or was prevented from doing so by the party opposing deferral. (3) Board law reasonably permits the award. Under Spielberg/Olin the Board deferred to an arbitration/joint panel award or decision when: (1) the arbitration proceedings were fair and regular (2) all parties agreed to be bound by the decision (3) the arbitral decision was not repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act. Further, the arbitral forum must have considered the unfair labor practice issue. The Board deemed the unfair labor practice issue to have been adequately considered if: (1) the contractual issue was factually parallel to the unfair labor practice issue. (2) the arbitrator was presented generally with the facts relevant to resolving the unfair labor practice issue. ●☆The burden of proof rested with the party opposing deferral☆● (this is generally a rank and file union members). The NLRB General Counsel's office has issued their own brief in favor of returning to Spielberg/Olin....showing that they are in fact sadly on the side of big business. Others who filed a brief in favor of Spielberg/Olin were the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the law offices of Frost, Brown, Todd (UPS's legal counsel). Filing briefs in favor of retaining the Babcock and Wilcox standard on behalf of RA and all union members were RA's attorney Cathy Highet and also The Association for Union Democracy. Below I've attach links to all of these briefs and the NLRB decision soliciting these briefs. Solidarity P.S. Thank you to Board member Lauren McFerran for offering a dissent to the Board's decision to attempt to do away with Babcock and Wilcox. She is the loan voice defending working men and women remaining on the Board and she is doing a fantastic job. P.S.S. Also thank you to the Association for Union Democracy for writing a brief defending Babcock and Wilcox. They are excellent defenders of the rank and file! P.S.S.S. And as always, thank you to RA's attorney Cathy Highet. This case would have never made it past the Pittsburgh Regional office with RA's charges if it wasn't for her. If you click the link below for the brief that she wrote, it's very evident what an amazingly gifted and talented legal mind that she is. Link to RA's case: [URL="https://www.nlrb.gov/case/06-CA-143062"]NLRB | Public Website[/URL] Direct link to Board Decision requesting briefs: [URL]http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582b3fc2e[/URL] General Counsel's Brief: [URL]http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcdc77[/URL] RA's attorney Cathy Highet's brief: [URL]http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcfa84[/URL] The Association for Union Democracy's brief: [URL]http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bcf982[/URL] UPS attorneys Frost, Brown,Todd's brief: [URL]http://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4582bce30e[/URL] The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America's brief: [MEDIA=googledrive]0B5QDERfr3nSneTBDNzc0czF1M0x1bWE3dE9iVS15UktWejJn[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
UPS Wrongly fired Driver for Union Activities but stays fired due to Facebook postings
Top