9.5 Arbitration decision - Or - Why clear contract language is important

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by zubenelgenubi, Sep 19, 2019.

  1. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    To sum up:

    Based on the language from the 2013 - 2018 contract, an arbitrator finds that the company did not violate Article 37 by working an employee on the 9.5 list over 9.5 more than 3 times in a single week. The decision was based on the use of the word "continually", and the arbitrator decided that the facts of the case at hand did not meet the definition. The decision disregarded the understanding reached between the negotiators about what the language meant, according to negotiation transcripts.

    So there you have it folks. Clear language in a contract is paramount. The changes in the new contract did not address this particular word use. Be prepared for the company to start fighting 9.5 grievances based on this precedent. No clarification on what it would take to meet the definition of "continually" in 9.5 violation cases was given, but it is clear that it must happen more often than just a single week of over 3 days.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. 542thruNthru

    542thruNthru Well-Known Member

    I may have missed it but I believe the understand was about the first week. The driver was only violated once in the 5 months he was on 9.5 and it was towards the end of the 5 months if I remember correctly.
    Screenshot_20190919-111335_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

    They attempted to change the wording but the company would not budge.
    Screenshot_20190919-111553_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

    I don't know the actual source of this information. Someone said TDU sent it out. I don't have anything really against TDU but they do like to stir the pot. So I'll take this letter with a grain of salt.

    I want to know why this case was even allowed to make it this far. Why go to arbitration with such a weak case and risk this kind of judgment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  3. 542thruNthru

    542thruNthru Well-Known Member

    Also I just realized this is @Brownslave688 local.

    I should have known...
     
  4. bowhnterdon

    bowhnterdon Active Member

    The Company wouldn’t budge. So the IBT rolled over and played (very well) dead...
     
  5. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member


    Just to be clear, I did get added to the tdu email list, not sure how, and this did come to me through that. But the file I uploaded was the actual written decision produced by the Arbitration Association, and I was making my comments solely on that information. My point was more about the Teamster negotiators relying on verbal agreements over clarity of language. That has come around to bite us.

    It apparently wasn't weak enough because it locked at panel, hence the arbitration.
     
  6. 542thruNthru

    542thruNthru Well-Known Member

    I wasn't questioning you. I haven't checked to see if this decision is real. If you have then I'll accept that.

    I agree that contract language clarity is important. Though the verbal agreement was considered in the process. The problem was that it was only about the first week.

    Did the Union screw up having "continually" in the language... YES. That's where I see the biggest mistake and now we are paying for it.
     
  7. zubenelgenubi

    zubenelgenubi Well-Known Member

    No worries, just wanted to be transparent. The Arbitrator should have used the transcripts to inform his decision, but it seems he decided the language was clear (unclear?) enough to overturn the understanding established during negotiations. A good lesson to consider going forward.

    I would hope the tdu wouldn't manufacture something like this, but I will double check.
     
  8. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I was able to get a warning letter for an accident rescinded because of the way it was written. Instead of just writing me up for the accident they wrote me up for “continuous” failure to follow the methods. That was an easy win seeing how no one had ever witnessed me, or spoken to me about, continuously violating methods.

    But in the case of over 9.5 grievances I don’t see how this could stick because the company has already paid out God knows how many similar grievances.
     
  9. Brownslave688

    Brownslave688 You want a toe? I can get you a toe.

    So what just throw out the first couple 9.5 violations and let them pile guys up 1-2 days every week they don’t violate them 3 times?
     
  10. bowhnterdon

    bowhnterdon Active Member

    Weren’t these Negotiations recorded so we wouldn’t have the intent of the Language questioned?
     
  11. 542thruNthru

    542thruNthru Well-Known Member

    These last negotiations were recorded(2018). I believe it was the first time. The ones before were not.
     
  12. 542thruNthru

    542thruNthru Well-Known Member

    I think that's a different scenario. This was about only being violated one week in the 5 months of your 9.5.
    You're talking about piling it on 2 days out of the week. Q
     
  13. Brownslave688

    Brownslave688 You want a toe? I can get you a toe.

    But what if this person had been violated over and over again twice and just finally got that 3rd day?

    By the way my BA has told us they can violate us twice a week as much as they want or put us over every single Friday if they want. Right from his mouth.


    Member: so how many fridays in a row do I need to work 10+ hours before it becomes a pattern and I can file?

    BA: you can’t. They can do that every Friday if they want.
     
  14. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Your BA is full of :censored2:.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  15. Brownslave688

    Brownslave688 You want a toe? I can get you a toe.

    Trust me I know. He lazy. Actually may be in poor health. Either way needs to step down.


    It was pointed out in the contract and everything. Answer still. They can do that. There’s nothing to file on.
     
  16. eats packages

    eats packages Tetris Master

    How about "The Company will not assign excessive over-time on the two (2) remaining days within the workweek in order to retaliate against a driver for opting onto the 9.5 list"

    If you are on the 9.5 list and have not been "excessively" violated, keep track of your dispatch now, methodically. This last section is how you can overrule this single word.
     
  17. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    I filed on that and included harassment. Haven’t had an issue since. I think our BA is suspect at times but it sounds like yours is a real f* up.
     
  18. Brownslave688

    Brownslave688 You want a toe? I can get you a toe.

    Like I said. It was read right to him.

    “Yeah you can’t file on that”
     
  19. Brownslave688

    Brownslave688 You want a toe? I can get you a toe.

    I’ve always felt he was pretty bad but something is up. Been real bad lately. Even for him
     
  20. 542thruNthru

    542thruNthru Well-Known Member

    This is also the BA that said you can't get on and off the 9.5 list.

    SMH