Our center is starting Telematics and the extended area drivers are being told that they can not break trace and must brown bag it and remain on car for lunch, better yet, during the cold months they also have to make sure the truck is not running while they are sitting there taking lunch that way they don't burn up the companies fuel. I have told several of them to go in town to use the facilities and then have lunch that way they cannot be penalized simply for leaving area just for their lunch because their original intent was to relieve themselves.
Anyone familiar with arbitration requiring drivers to take lunch on car?
- Thread starter bigredfvr
- Start date
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Re: Anyone familiar with arbitration requireing drivers to take lunch on car?
Moved to UPS Labor Relations forum per UPSNewbie's suggestion.
gandydancer
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a good plan. I don't doubt the company can try to enforce this rule, the trick is to make them wish they hadn't. If they hassle you follow your trace stop for stop, and don't do any peeing in bottles to save the company time. Etc.
Exactly! When they get tired of me breaking trace 5 times a day to drive 10 miles to the nearest town to use the bathroom (because I'm drinking plenty of water to stay hydrated per my HABITS training), I suspect we will come to a reasonable agreement.
The Law makes a distinction between on-duty paid time, and unpaid lunch time. Unpaid lunch time is your own time. You can leave the area and do what you want (within reason). You do have to secure the vehicle and park in a safe place before leaving, and you can not drink or do drugs as the effects will spill over beyond your lunch time.
If you are told to stay with your car, you are on duty and get a paid lunch, by Law. Check Federal and State laws for the specifics. Check your regional Contract Supplement for details on working your lunch. File a grievance in advance to stop the policy, and if necessary, file to recover paid lunch money, if the policy is actually implimented. Your BA should welcome this issue as an easy win.
If you are told to stay with your car, you are on duty and get a paid lunch, by Law. Check Federal and State laws for the specifics. Check your regional Contract Supplement for details on working your lunch. File a grievance in advance to stop the policy, and if necessary, file to recover paid lunch money, if the policy is actually implimented. Your BA should welcome this issue as an easy win.
gandydancer
Well-Known Member
I don't thing they're being told to stay with the truck. Just to stop for lunch in the middle of nowhere and not use it further. As I said, I don't see why the company can't do this. You have to make your bosses know that if they get in a pissing contest with you that they're going to take a hit. That's just the way it is at UPS. If you don't make it costly to walk all over you your name is Rug.
GandyDancer wants to believe this:
But Original Poster specifically said this:
But Original Poster specifically said this:
Ah, so that's how MultiQuote works!
gandydancer
Well-Known Member
I think you're being unduly literal again. But, we'll see... If he comes back.
stevetheupsguy
sʇǝʌǝʇɥǝndsƃnʎ
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
There is no way the company can deny the driver the right to use restroom facilities and wash his hands prior to eating.
Nor will the company prevail in trying to force drivers to sit and freeze during the winter.
It seems there are no federal laws that require employers to provide lunch hours however there are requirements if a company has a meal period. This is from the Dept of Labor and it would seem that if an employee was forced to stay with their package car(desk, as in the example)for their meal period then they haven't been relieved of their duties and would have a case to be compensated. JMHO
29 CFR 785.19 - Meal.
* Section Number: 785.19
* Section Name: Meal.
(a) Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime.
Bona
fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These
are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for
the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is
long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long
enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is
required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while
eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his
desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working
while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 friend. Supp. 661
(D. Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 friend. 2d 981 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied 344
U.S. 888 (1952); Thompson v. Stock & Sons, Inc., 93 friend. Supp. 213 (E.D.
Mich 1950), aff'd 194 friend. 2d 493 (C.A. 6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy
Corp., 183 friend. 2d 515 (C. A. 9, 1950), 187 friend. 2d 447 (C.A. 9, 1951);
Walling v. Dunbar Transfer & Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor
Cases para. 61.565 (W.D. Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke
Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D. Okla. 1942);
aff'd 136 friend. 2d 359 (C.A. 10, 1943); cert. denied 320 U.S. 772 (1943);
Mitchell v. Tampa Cigar Co., 36 Labor Cases para. 65, 198, 14 W.H. Cases
38 (S.D. Fla. 1959); Douglass v. Hurwitz Co., 145 friend. Supp. 29, 13 W.H.
Cases (E.D. Pa. 1956))
(b) Where no permission to leave premises. It is not necessary that
an employee be permitted to leave the premises if he is otherwise
completely freed from duties during the meal period.
29 CFR 785.19 - Meal.
* Section Number: 785.19
* Section Name: Meal.
(a) Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not worktime.
Bona
fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These
are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for
the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is
long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long
enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is
required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while
eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his
desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working
while eating. (Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin, Nebraska Co., 97 friend. Supp. 661
(D. Neb. 1951), aff'd 197 friend. 2d 981 (C.A. 8, 1952), cert. denied 344
U.S. 888 (1952); Thompson v. Stock & Sons, Inc., 93 friend. Supp. 213 (E.D.
Mich 1950), aff'd 194 friend. 2d 493 (C.A. 6, 1952); Biggs v. Joshua Hendy
Corp., 183 friend. 2d 515 (C. A. 9, 1950), 187 friend. 2d 447 (C.A. 9, 1951);
Walling v. Dunbar Transfer & Storage Co., 3 W.H. Cases 284; 7 Labor
Cases para. 61.565 (W.D. Tenn. 1943); Lofton v. Seneca Coal and Coke
Co., 2 W.H. Cases 669; 6 Labor Cases para. 61,271 (N.D. Okla. 1942);
aff'd 136 friend. 2d 359 (C.A. 10, 1943); cert. denied 320 U.S. 772 (1943);
Mitchell v. Tampa Cigar Co., 36 Labor Cases para. 65, 198, 14 W.H. Cases
38 (S.D. Fla. 1959); Douglass v. Hurwitz Co., 145 friend. Supp. 29, 13 W.H.
Cases (E.D. Pa. 1956))
(b) Where no permission to leave premises. It is not necessary that
an employee be permitted to leave the premises if he is otherwise
completely freed from duties during the meal period.
Wow... For some reason I think this would be totally SATISFYING to follow the lunch restriction and then grieve it for a few weeks of paid lunch hours, and just RUB it in my supervisors face.
I would also take this a step further. In some hot climates, drivers have been told to take their DIAD with them while on lunch, instead of locking it in the back of a 150 degree package car.
To me, the driver is NOT being "completely released from duty", and therefore should be paid his lunch.
What do you think?
To me, the driver is NOT being "completely released from duty", and therefore should be paid his lunch.
What do you think?
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
This method is not for the squeamish...but if some hard-assed center manager is really that gung-ho about denying his people the right to break trace to find a restroom then the solution would be for all the affected drivers to go into the back of the truck, take a crap in a DR bag, and bring the bags in and leave them on the center manager's desk with a note indicating the time and place that the bowel movements had occured so that he can use Telematics to verify for certain that they had in fact remained on area.
stevetheupsguy
sʇǝʌǝʇɥǝndsƃnʎ
This method is not for the squeamish...but if some hard-assed center manager is really that gung-ho about denying his people the right to break trace to find a restroom then the solution would be for all the affected drivers to go into the back of the truck, take a crap in a DR bag, and bring the bags in and leave them on the center manager's desk with a note indicating the time and place that the bowel movements had occured so that he can use Telematics to verify for certain that they had in fact remained on area.
I believe a picture of said "movement" should be required, as well as a picture of the center manager after receipt of said movement.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
This method is not for the squeamish...but if some hard-assed center manager is really that gung-ho about denying his people the right to break trace to find a restroom then the solution would be for all the affected drivers to go into the back of the truck, take a crap in a DR bag, and bring the bags in and leave them on the center manager's desk with a note indicating the time and place that the bowel movements had occured so that he can use Telematics to verify for certain that they had in fact remained on area.
Now I understand why they changed their title to Business Manager.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
No grievance panel is going to allow the company to deny drivers the use of suitable restroom or meal facilities...particularly if it has been a past practice.
Whats really sad is that we are paying a salary to the management person that would even try to implement such a rule. Even by UPS management standards this is heartless and ignorant.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Article 6
I would interpret this to mean that the company cannot now arbitrarily deny drivers the right to break trace for meals due to the implementation of GPS/Telematics.
If it was allowed before, GPS cant change it now.
Section 4
(8) No employee shall be discharged on a first offense if such discharge is based solely upon
information received from GPS or any successor system unless he/she engages in dishonesty
(defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any act or omission by an employee where he/she
intends to defraud the Company). The degree of discipline dealing with off-area offenses shall not
be changed because of the use of GPS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(8) No employee shall be discharged on a first offense if such discharge is based solely upon
information received from GPS or any successor system unless he/she engages in dishonesty
(defined for the purposes of this paragraph as any act or omission by an employee where he/she
intends to defraud the Company). The degree of discipline dealing with off-area offenses shall not
be changed because of the use of GPS.
I would interpret this to mean that the company cannot now arbitrarily deny drivers the right to break trace for meals due to the implementation of GPS/Telematics.
If it was allowed before, GPS cant change it now.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Over, isn't that splitting hairs? Obviously they are concerned about potential damage to the DIAD from the heat. I would just put it on the seat next to me and ignore any messages while I am eating.
