Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by zubenelgenubi, Sep 19, 2019.
Why would a driver not take their contractually entitled (and required)
1 hour lunch ?
because there wasn’t enough voter turn out and they are tdu
Better Question, is this really going to impact past and future Grievances?
It sets a precedent. Each case will still need to be determined on its own merits, but this will be used to guide future/current decisions. Now we know one week violation does not meet the "continual" requirement.
Next they will try to say a couple weeks, spread far apart, will not meet it either. Actually I think this case established that too. But the company will be able to slowly challenge the definition, and each time it is determined that the case does not meet the term "continually", they will be eroding the intention of the language.
It's the concept that you cannot create a pile of sand by adding a single grain. You either have a pile or you do not, a single grain will not change that.
In this case a good option will be to continuously file retaliation and harassment greviences using the pile on work language
Really? You are way out of the loop. Your lack of common sense is staggering.
Why do you....pretend? Lol.
Apparently this notion was broached in 1986 (and prior), in at least the Central Region?
....so what's really going on here???
That's a fine question. Looks like someone failed due diligence in preparing for this arbitration. I wonder which decision would win out if both were brought up?
....and yes, Local 688 is in St Louis and in the Central Region as well.
So what went wrong here?
Lazy UPSers didn't vote. Lol.
It sounds like that what the IBT argued.... and the arbitrator disagreed, based on
the language and the company's position.
So they can now move excessive OT from driver to driver to driver without anyone ever being able to file a grievance.
Do you really think, the company could coordinate something like that ?
They can't even get the right packages on the right truck everyday....
UPS has been abusing this language for years. Grievance after grievance is either stonewalled, withdrawn or settled short. If by some chance; a grievant is successful; retaliation from UPS is forthcoming.
Continuously is 3 days in a 5 day period. Not open to interpretation. No grey area.
Once it gets to the arbitrator; we are basically screwed.
If anyone is assigned an arbitrator with the initials B.W. Google arbitrators with the initials B.W. and you can ascertain who it is. Avoid at all costs. Request BW to recuse him/herself or withdraw.
B.W. along with many other arbitrators consistently side with the company.
And if you are not on the best of terms with the union and UPS; Avoid B.W. if at all possible. B.W. will not make decisions based on the CBA or the essence of the CBA. You will have very little to no chance of correcting (successfully appealing) B.W. award/decision in Federal or State court.
The Supreme Court’s decision in 'Henry Schein', and the First Department’s decisions in 'Daesang' and 'Spell', reaffirm that those courts will strictly enforce arbitration agreements on the front-end of the arbitration process, and afford a high degree of deference to the arbitrator’s award at the back-end of the process.
Some of these arbitrators are just as unethical and corrupt as Hoffa/Hall/Taylor/BRF & UPS Labor Mgmt combined.
It's almost unbelievable the anti-Union, RTW, nonsense you post.
You obviously have no clue, how the arbitration process works.
Read the contract sometime.... specifically, Article 8 of the master.
I agree with BUG on this. If you let them, the company will build routes in such a way that you will have service failures if you take your whole lunch when you are supposed to. I didn't understand the significance of this before I started posting on these forums. Everyone in my building works straight through and takes their PT at the end of the day in the building. Doing this allows the company to cut routes that should go in to make service, which hurts everyone. The lower seniority guys who have to stay home, and the higher seniority guys who get overloaded with stops. Take your lunch when you are supposed to, message to the center if you will have service failures. Force them to clean up their own mess.
BUG has demonstrated a refusal to assist the teamster members who paid his salary.
Cmon wise one
Help ensure RPCDs have the right to the 40 hours + OT that they received during the 1st year+ of this CBA. Can the Maintenance of Standards article be argued and won at the panel, arbitration, etc.? If so, how? If not, why not? How about a course of action?
It was not the intent of the contract to take RPCDs right to 40 hours away. It's bad enough all of the drivers who bid onto Tues to Sat routes will be forced back to M-F. which negates seniority when it comes to bidding on preferred work schedules. My experience at State Panels is obviously limited compared to yours. I have read numerous arbitration decisions but have never been a party to one. It is beyond my skillset to craft a valid grievance that would stand up at the panel and/or arbitration. It appears to be beyond your skillset as well. What a shame.
Who would that be ?
Seeing one of you TDU people finally admit you have no experience, is funny.
Never been a Steward, BA, or an Officer.... no experience with contract negotiations,
arbitration, panels, or even local level hearings. But, you've read a few things.
And now.... you grovel for help.
But he said he was a PT committee man.
Separate names with a comma.