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 Union Issues
V. O. T. E.
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="&#039;Lord Brown&#039;s bidding&#039;" data-source="post: 1150519" data-attributes="member: 32753"><p>On a related note, I have somewhat similar misgivings about the apprehension surrounding the language concerning dishonesty and it's relation to the word <em>fraud </em>,and it's use in disciplining drivers. "Fraud" isn't just dishonesty, but includes doing so for 'financial or personal gain' while causing 'damages' for the defrauded party; not "projected damages", but actual damages. A driver sheeting up a NDA at his previous stop before the actual one and then driving to it is not defrauding the company in any way, nor will it result in "personal or financial gain" for him outside of his continuing to have a job, but then he hasn't <em>gained</em> anything, he <em>keeps</em>. </p><p></p><p>So "discharged for dishonesty" <strong>should</strong> never happen in this case, provided those arguing on behalf of the member understand the language being interpreted. The company <strong>could</strong> get him for "failure to follow methods and procedures", but that involves going through the process; after the warning letter, if a driver has not <strong><em>doggedly </em>asked</strong> <strong>for</strong> and received re-training on the methods so as to avoid coming into conflict with them, he is going to get what is coming to him (or perhaps his union reps, or even a sympathetic senior driver, could intercede and suggest the idea in his behalf, after alerting him of the idea, though).</p><p></p><p>We should not assume what words mean, whether they be <em>assigned </em>or <em>dishonesty</em>, as they have pretty specific definitions; they are not necessarily open to interpretation, not without some <strong>meaningful </strong>precedent. The only downside to mincing words like this is if the case involves time away from the job for the aggrieved, however, Bubblehead has info to help with this concern, so that aggrieved members don't have to rush a judgement in cases like this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="'Lord Brown's bidding', post: 1150519, member: 32753"] On a related note, I have somewhat similar misgivings about the apprehension surrounding the language concerning dishonesty and it's relation to the word [I]fraud [/I],and it's use in disciplining drivers. "Fraud" isn't just dishonesty, but includes doing so for 'financial or personal gain' while causing 'damages' for the defrauded party; not "projected damages", but actual damages. A driver sheeting up a NDA at his previous stop before the actual one and then driving to it is not defrauding the company in any way, nor will it result in "personal or financial gain" for him outside of his continuing to have a job, but then he hasn't [I]gained[/I] anything, he [I]keeps[/I]. So "discharged for dishonesty" [B]should[/B] never happen in this case, provided those arguing on behalf of the member understand the language being interpreted. The company [B]could[/B] get him for "failure to follow methods and procedures", but that involves going through the process; after the warning letter, if a driver has not [B][I]doggedly [/I]asked[/B] [B]for[/B] and received re-training on the methods so as to avoid coming into conflict with them, he is going to get what is coming to him (or perhaps his union reps, or even a sympathetic senior driver, could intercede and suggest the idea in his behalf, after alerting him of the idea, though). We should not assume what words mean, whether they be [I]assigned [/I]or [I]dishonesty[/I], as they have pretty specific definitions; they are not necessarily open to interpretation, not without some [B]meaningful [/B]precedent. The only downside to mincing words like this is if the case involves time away from the job for the aggrieved, however, Bubblehead has info to help with this concern, so that aggrieved members don't have to rush a judgement in cases like this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
V. O. T. E.
Top