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

[Rack em]

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.

I would punch that spineless piece of right in the throat! He works for you and he seems to have forgotten that!

 

[Brownslave688]

I would punch that spineless piece of right in the throat! He works for you and he seems to have forgotten that!

Unfortunately we don’t elect BA so there’s little incentive.

 

[Rack em]

Unfortunately we don’t elect BA so there’s little incentive.

DFR charges should be filed.

 

[Brownslave688]

DFR charges should be filed.

It really should happen. Unfortunately what happens is 1 of 2 things. They switch BA areas around so you think ok this one will be better but it rarely is.


And our stewards quit every couple years when they get sick of it

 

[Inthegame]

Unfortunately we don’t elect BA so there’s little incentive.

You elect his boss.

 

[scooby0048]

Like I said. It was read right to him.

“Yeah you can’t file on that”

Sounds like ours. Just as useless as ever.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

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.

I tried searching for the decision, but it requires a subscription. I think it would be pretty ballsy to try and make up a case and decision like that.

I posted this because I like exploring and learning more about the process and panel/arbitration decisions. I'm not trying to lay blame or point fingers. If I were, in this particular situation, I would say it was deceitful of the company negotiators to agree on an explanation, but have no intention of honoring it. I also think the arbitrator may have been short-sighted in letting the company off the hook for it.

 

[What'dyabringmetoday???]

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.

Well the BA might be "working" over 12 hours every Friday. Lol!

 

[Brownslave688]

Well the BA might be "working" over 12 hours every Friday. Lol!

More like phone goes off at 3 on Thursday

 

[Dragon]

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.

My favorite part...

 

[Dragon]

My favorite part...

View attachment 264388

At least next time pick a better case to use as the "9.5" case at the National Panel...yeesh guys. Easy Win for the company.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

At least next time pick a better case to use as the "9.5" case at the National Panel...yeesh guys. Easy Win for the company.

I don't understand why they chose that case, as the "pilot" case.

They had to have had better one. One violation in 5 months.... is excessive ?

 

[542thruNthru]

I don't understand why they chose that case, as the "pilot" case.

They had to have had better one. One violation in 5 months.... is excessive ?

I think we are all asking the same question. Not very smart on someone's part.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I think we are all asking the same question. Not very smart on someone's part.

shocking

 

[UnconTROLLed]

thank you, hofficials

 

[burrheadd]

I think we are all asking the same question. Not very smart on someone's part.

Depends who you’re working for

Some might consider it very smart on someone’s part

Just saying

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I think someone on the union side got "continued" mixed up with "continual". The driver would have had to been worked over 9.5 on a regular basis to have gotten on the list to begin with. Using the words "continued working" rather than "continually worked" would have better conveyed the obvious intent of "9.5 protection"

 

[KingofFluff]

". The driver would have had to been worked over 9.5 on a regular basis to have gotten on the list to begin with.

WRONG

 

[Brownslave688]

WRONG

This grievance is from before this contract.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

WRONG

That's what the old contract said. I was never able to get on the list, so I was using the contract as a reference.

"c) The Employer shall make a reasonable effort to reduce package car drivers’ workdays below nine and one half (9.5) hours per day where requested. If a review indicates that progress is not being made in the reduction of assigned hours of work, (i.e the package driver has worked more than 9.5 hours on three (3) days in a workweek), the following language shall apply, except in the months of November and December:
The affected regular package driver may make such a request to be added to the “9.5 Opt-In List” effective on the first day of his/her workweek after making the request. The driver shall notify the manager and steward of his/her desire to be added to the List. The request must be made within the time limit for filing a grievance in the applicable Supplement, Rider or Addendum."

Where did I go wrong?