Production termination!

[705red]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethat

But I wonder if this person had it all to do over again, knowing what he knows now. I'm willing to bet he'd probably still be a steward and probably still have filed grievances. But I'm also willing to be, he'd have filed less. But just a guesss.

So the company has created well over a hundred grievances that they have been caught violating, how many did they get away with?

And the steward who was elected to uphold the contract that ups agreed to honor is the bad guy here?

Cmon!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well i wish this driver all the best and i hops he exhausts all of his legal recourse to right this wrong!

[pickup]

Originally Posted by trickpony1

It's my understanding that the grievance procedure must be exhausted before the individual can seek the services of an attorney.
If this case has gone to arbitration then I would say the grievance procedure has been exhausted.
I would highly recommend that this individual file with the EEOC claiming discrimination immediately. There has to be other drivers who are over 3-3.5 stops per hour.
If the EEOC finds no fault, they will issue the grievant a "right to sue" letter which pretty much opens the door for an attorney to assist in his case. I would also have the attorney pursue retaliation charges against the company.

EEOC is the equal employment opportunity commission which investigates cases where someone is denied a promotion or job or is fired due to age, ethnicity, etc, etc. I don't think eeoc applies here. I think a case must be made to the NLRB , national labor review board. A person can not be fired for his activities pertaining to a union, obviously this is not the stated reason for his dismissal but we all know that's why he was fired. The shop steward has to know this because he has dealt with the nlrb so i'm not saying anything he doesn't know. Hopefully, if he goes this route, that the nlrb will be a little more labor friendly than it has been under our current president .

[coldworld]

Originally Posted by redshift1

In my building the drivers who received production rides had erratic performances in SPOHR and over/under. When they were off utility drivers would routinely out perform them on similar volume days. Hard to imagine a
experienced driver with area knowledge being in this type situation while making an honest effort.

There are some cover drivers who skip their breaks and lunch and also RUN to get done faster....now I know there are a few drivers that are slackers, but dont compare my day to the cover driver doing this BS. If they are running and cutting major corners they will get done quite a bit faster than someone walking at a brisk pace and who takes their lunch... thats not fair.

[local804]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethat

Red as someone else wrote here before. Work as if your boss were monitoring each activity. Did you follow methods, Did you follow SWM etc? If so, there shouldn't be anything to worry about. Note this goes for both hourly and mgmt.

Jut my 2 cents......

Like Red said, The member was not a favorite by any means of UPS. He was a very good shop steward and stuck up for the contract and enforced it. From what I understand, he was on a slate also to run for office in November. I really dont think he didnt follow methods and I really cant say what he did or didnt do because I wasnt there. Bottom line is the man had a target on his back and they went after him hard. The ruling was binding but from what I understand, there is one option. It was just a case in arbitration that one person hears 2 stories and makes a ruling. If UPS wants you, they will do anything under the sun to get you, we all know that. Lets just wait and see what happens here.

[dilligaf]

I would do as Trick said. Check EEOC. I have won an EEOC before.

http://www.eeoc.gov/



And check through this to. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html

[dilligaf]

Originally Posted by pickup

EEOC is the equal employment opportunity commission which investigates cases where someone is denied a promotion or job or is fired due to age, ethnicity, etc, etc. I don't think eeoc applies here. I think a case must be made to the NLRB , national labor review board. A person can not be fired for his activities pertaining to a union, obviously this is not the stated reason for his dismissal but we all know that's why he was fired. The shop steward has to know this because he has dealt with the nlrb so i'm not saying anything he doesn't know. Hopefully, if he goes this route, that the nlrb will be a little more labor friendly than it has been under our current president .

Actually EEOC and NLRB work hand in hand. EEOC can give a case to NLRB if it is warranted.

[pickup]

Originally Posted by dilligaf

I would do as Trick said. Check EEOC. I have won an EEOC before.

http://www.eeoc.gov/



And check through this to. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html

I checked your link,states" includes protected activity", so i stand corrected as i stated in earlier post that eeoc doesn't apply but I do know that the nlrb route is also valid for I have a friend who is shop steward in a different industry who was fired once( he was a thorn in the side of the employer on behalf of his fellow workers and went through the nlrb to successfully get his job back. This was a long time ago during the clinton administration. I know when bush got into office that the nlrb shifted sharply towards favoring employers over employees.

[pickup]

I was posting while you typed the followup regarding nlrb and eeoc going hand in hand dilligaf. Nice catch. thanks

[redshift1]

Originally Posted by coldworld

There are some cover drivers who skip their breaks and lunch and also RUN to get done faster....now I know there are a few drivers that are slackers, but dont compare my day to the cover driver doing this BS. If they are running and cutting major corners they will get done quite a bit faster than someone walking at a brisk pace and who takes their lunch... thats not fair.

The key is, if the driver demonstrates a specific level of performance while the supervisor is on car for consecutive days then it's reasonable to expect that same level of performance when he is by himself. For example if the driver runs 17.5 SPOHR on the ride along and suddenly runs 17.2 SPORH when by himself then there is an obvious problem. As a reminder these rides are done over a period of consecutive days so the statistical samples are more reliable. I cannot recall a production termination in my district usually something else is going on as well this driver in question may have been promoting a contentious and divisive personal agenda very few companies big or small will tolerate that behavior.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by redshift1

The key is, if the driver demonstrates a specific level of performance while the supervisor is on car for consecutive days then it's reasonable to expect that same level of performance when he is by himself. For example if the driver runs 17.5 SPOHR on the ride along and suddenly runs 17.2 SPORH when by himself then there is an obvious problem. As a reminder these rides are done over a period of consecutive days so the statistical samples are more reliable. I cannot recall a production termination in my district usually something else is going on as well this driver in question may have been promoting a contentious and divisive personal agenda very few companies big or small will tolerate that behavior.

0.3 per hour less is a problem? At the end of a 9 hour day, that is almost 3 stops difference total for the day. I call

You can't recall one because it's never happened. If something else is the problem as you suggest, why go after the driver over SPORH? Care to give any examples of what you mean by promoting a contentious and divisive personal agenda ?

[JimJimmyJames]

Originally Posted by redshift1

For example if the driver runs 17.5 SPOHR on the ride along and suddenly runs 17.2 SPORH when by himself then there is an obvious problem.

If a difference of .3 stops per hour is a major problem than everyone in package is doomed.

Ridiculous.

[redshift1]

Originally Posted by JimJimmyJames

If a difference of .3 stops per hour is a major problem than everyone in package is doomed.

Ridiculous.

How would you do it then?

[redshift1]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

0.3 per hour less is a problem? At the end of a 9 hour day, that is almost 3 stops difference total for the day. I call

You can't recall one because it's never happened. If something else is the problem as you suggest, why go after the driver over SPORH? Care to give any examples of what you mean by promoting a contentious and divisive personal agenda ?

Actively soliciting and inciting dissension between collective parties for
personal benefit.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by redshift1

Actively soliciting and inciting dissension between collective parties for
personal benefit.

I'm not freakin lawyer...what the heck does that mean?

[UPSNewbie]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

I'm not freakin lawyer...what the heck does that mean?

Bringing every hourly to his side to fight the good fight against UPS, basically.

I wouldn't know, but it seems like this steward is not doing that. Seems like he was upholding the contract that BOTH UPS and Teamsters agreed upon, making sure all of the employees file for every wrong-doing, instead of laying down and taking it.

[brownIEman]

II would be curious to see the arbitrators findings. Any chance you could just post the entire Adobe file? Is it considered public information at this point? If not, I certainly understand that would not be cosher.
A couple points for every one to keep in mind based on what Red has said -
The production this driver was compared to is not based on any PAS calculation for expected SPORH, and is not based at all in any way on an IE time study. It is based on actual demonstrated performance during a three day production ride.
Also, as Red said, there were several days in which his SPORH after these lock in rides was 3 or more less. Not one day, and not .3 SPORH less. Several days of 3 or more SPORH less. All else being equal, this points pretty heavily toward a driver not giving a fair days work. If he was giving a fair days effort, the obvious question is what happened on these several days? Was there inclement weather that did not exist during the lock in ride days? Was there road closures? etc. Hopefully if any such incidents occured, the driver was able to provide evidence for it.

[UPSNewbie]

Originally Posted by brownIEman

II would be curious to see the arbitrators findings. Any chance you could just post the entire Adobe file? Is it considered public information at this point? If not, I certainly understand that would not be cosher.
A couple points for every one to keep in mind based on what Red has said -
The production this driver was compared to is not based on any PAS calculation for expected SPORH, and is not based at all in any way on an IE time study. It is based on actual demonstrated performance during a three day production ride.
Also, as Red said, there were several days in which his SPORH after these lock in rides was 3 or more less. Not one day, and not .3 SPORH less. Several days of 3 or more SPORH less. All else being equal, this points pretty heavily toward a driver not giving a fair days work. If he was giving a fair days effort, the obvious question is what happened on these several days? Was there inclement weather that did not exist during the lock in ride days? Was there road closures? etc. Hopefully if any such incidents occured, the driver was able to provide evidence for it.

What you state here comes back to that "Little Black Book."

[Sleeve_meet_Heart]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethat

Red as someone else wrote here before. Work as if your boss were monitoring each activity. Did you follow methods, Did you follow SWM etc? If so, there shouldn't be anything to worry about. Note this goes for both hourly and mgmt.

Jut my 2 cents......

Not good to hear about the driver and steward, first of all. Hopefully if there was any injustice it will be righted

I have to disagree with the above. I have been fired for sitting at the end of a bulk slide AFTER a shift by a prev DM. It was deemed "unsafe behaviour". Yes, the unload was down, and I was sitting at the end of the slide drinking some water, the temperature was around 90 degrees. Ironically it was maybe 2 weeks to 2 months after filing and winning a few grievances and also about 6 months after being hurt in the sort and going thru Liberty Mutual. I got my job back interestingly after the firing.

[Hawaii50]

Hope things get better.

[New Englander]

Originally Posted by 705red

After reading through all of it, which is just about 40 pages, he did have several days were he was off by 3 stops an hour.

This arb, really stepped over the line, and in my opinion the union did a real bad job in its case.

I'm guessing his 3 stops per hour off days was the "stick it to UPS" days that some drivers do?

I'm guessing to fire them they need to show a regular problem of it happening repeatedly.

Sorry but every center has drivers that should be fired for this.

[Hawaii50]

arbitration decisions are precedent. Thanks for that information.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by brownIEman

II would be curious to see the arbitrators findings. Any chance you could just post the entire Adobe file? Is it considered public information at this point? If not, I certainly understand that would not be cosher.
A couple points for every one to keep in mind based on what Red has said -
The production this driver was compared to is not based on any PAS calculation for expected SPORH, and is not based at all in any way on an IE time study. It is based on actual demonstrated performance during a three day production ride.
Also, as Red said, there were several days in which his SPORH after these lock in rides was 3 or more less. Not one day, and not .3 SPORH less. Several days of 3 or more SPORH less. All else being equal, this points pretty heavily toward a driver not giving a fair days work. If he was giving a fair days effort, the obvious question is what happened on these several days? Was there inclement weather that did not exist during the lock in ride days? Was there road closures? etc. Hopefully if any such incidents occured, the driver was able to provide evidence for it.

There are other "obvious" questions also. Was the load massaged by a sup to provide of a stop for stop load? (seen it happen for time studies) Was there any assistance provided for the driver by the sup riding with him, i.e. opening doors, pulling up packages to the front of the self or stacking packages on the HT while the driver put them on the steps? I've seen versions of this before also. Once during a stated " safe work methods" ride, after the sup had gotten all the info he wanted he began to help me in little ways so we could get finished. The next day he began to talk to me about my "performance" I stopped him in his tracks with the reminder that I would not have him around to help me everyday, so if he wanted to address performance he needed to ride with me another day with helping in any way, then we would start from zero.
Something is stinking about this whole thing with this driver/steward and the company and the arbitrator. From what we (as a message board) know it seems there was a dedicated effort by the company to get this guy for his union activities which is not only a contract violation but is also illegal. Why and arbitrator could not see this is beyond me.

[trplnkl]

Originally Posted by UPSNewbie

Bringing every hourly to his side to fight the good fight against UPS, basically.

I wouldn't know, but it seems like this steward is not doing that. Seems like he was upholding the contract that BOTH UPS and Teamsters agreed upon, making sure all of the employees file for every wrong-doing, instead of laying down and taking it.

Don't know if it is still part of the contract but at one time it was under the Steward duties and responsibilities section that a steward was not to solicit grievances. Which would be a contract violation. Why wasn't he fired for that if that is why they wanted him gone?

[brownIEman]

Originally Posted by trplnkl

There are other "obvious" questions also. Was the load massaged by a sup to provide of a stop for stop load? (seen it happen for time studies) Was there any assistance provided for the driver by the sup riding with him, i.e. opening doors, pulling up packages to the front of the self or stacking packages on the HT while the driver put them on the steps? I've seen versions of this before also. Once during a stated " safe work methods" ride, after the sup had gotten all the info he wanted he began to help me in little ways so we could get finished. The next day he began to talk to me about my "performance" I stopped him in his tracks with the reminder that I would not have him around to help me everyday, so if he wanted to address performance he needed to ride with me another day with helping in any way, then we would start from zero.
Something is stinking about this whole thing with this driver/steward and the company and the arbitrator. From what we (as a message board) know it seems there was a dedicated effort by the company to get this guy for his union activities which is not only a contract violation but is also illegal. Why and arbitrator could not see this is beyond me.

You are right on with the other immediate questions. I would assume that as an experienced driver and steward, he would be able to avoid most of the problems you mentioned. It should have been made clear to him that the rides were performance rides, and as you told the sup in your example, it is quite clear in the contract that any ride in which a sup assists a driver cannot be used as a performance ride. I may be assuming too much though.

It does sound like the center management targeted the guy specifically. But if that is the case, I cannot understand why he could either not demonstrate that to the arbitrator or they just could not see it. If he was targeted for union activity, not only would that be wrong and illegal, I consider it weak on the part of management that does it. Targeting someone for filing grievances is assinine. I have had grievances filed against me for doing hourly work. Some were valid, some were not, but none would I allow myself to take personally or look for "payback". That, as I said, takes a weak management team. Just my 2c.

[705red]

Originally Posted by brownIEman

II would be curious to see the arbitrators findings. Any chance you could just post the entire Adobe file? Is it considered public information at this point? If not, I certainly understand that would not be cosher.
A couple points for every one to keep in mind based on what Red has said -
The production this driver was compared to is not based on any PAS calculation for expected SPORH, and is not based at all in any way on an IE time study. It is based on actual demonstrated performance during a three day production ride.
Also, as Red said, there were several days in which his SPORH after these lock in rides was 3 or more less. Not one day, and not .3 SPORH less. Several days of 3 or more SPORH less. All else being equal, this points pretty heavily toward a driver not giving a fair days work. If he was giving a fair days effort, the obvious question is what happened on these several days? Was there inclement weather that did not exist during the lock in ride days? Was there road closures? etc. Hopefully if any such incidents occured, the driver was able to provide evidence for it.

Have you ever driven package car? Somedays you can walk through your truck easily, and some days its a game of hide and seek. Now if your playing a game of hide and seek looking for packages than its very easy for your spoh to go down by 3 stops. What should we do on days like this? Dont spend time digging and continue on and just drive back through the route later on in the day, which will also lower your spoh due to the extra miles.

This company had an agenda, i have been the steward that the company wanted to make an example of to get the rest of the drivers inline and fearing for their jobs. I didnt give in! I refused to accept a suspension for it 3 times over a 34 day period, and eventually was put back to work with my back pay!

The union did a real piss poor job on this arbitration, and should be removed for failing to repesent all of us in this precedent seeting debacle that they allowed to happen!