Article 17D

Discussion in 'UPS Union Issues' started by Mac-Lincoln-NE, Oct 26, 2007.

  1. Mac-Lincoln-NE

    Mac-Lincoln-NE New Member

    Please excuse my last post on Article 27. I meant anyone have info on Article 17D. Thank you.
  2. What did you want to know ?
  3. raceanoncr

    raceanoncr Well-Known Member

    What do you want? In Central Region Supplement, Art 17 D, "Gross negligence, resulting in a serious accident."?

    In Master, there is no Art 17 "D".
  4. RockyRogue

    RockyRogue Agent of Change

    He's in the Central Region. I forget what thread but he said he's somewhere in Nebraska. I forget what city, though. From his username, I'm thinking Lincoln. -Rocky
  5. Mac-Lincoln-NE

    Mac-Lincoln-NE New Member

    Should a person be fired for Art 17D if the accident was not their fault and the other person received traffic violations?
  6. helenofcalifornia

    helenofcalifornia Well-Known Member

    Was their a police report? If so, who was cited? Previous accidents? More details, please.
  7. raceanoncr

    raceanoncr Well-Known Member

    Absolutely not! BUT!!!! This is what the company does. They have to set example. Don't have time now but will get back to you on this issue. Some examples. And guidelines which are to be used to determine UPS drivers avoidable or unavoidable determination.

    And sounds like YOU got trouble, huh?
  8. Mac-Lincoln-NE

    Mac-Lincoln-NE New Member

    There was a police report. The other driver received 2 violations. No violations here.

    Kind of unavoidable when you are being hit on the side at 35 mph.

    Received a termination letter on 3rd day of suspension.

    Had to beg for the job back. Been there 28 years.
  9. raceanoncr

    raceanoncr Well-Known Member

    Alright, here are a few guidelines taken from "UPS-How to Judge Auto Accidents Effectively". A policy paper that UPS-only accident investigators are supposed to have. It must have "accidently" fell into my hands.

    There are 3 pages of criteria so I'll try to make it brief. This is quoting from the paper:

    "Basically, there is one question which should always be asked in determining avoidability:
    'Did our (italics theirs) driver take every reasonable precaution to
    avoid the accident?'
    If the answer is 'No', our driver was not driving defensively and, thus, the accident should be judged 'Avoidable'."

    "If the answer to all applicable questions is 'Yes', then our driver may be free of fault, and the accident should be considered 'Unavoidable'."

    In your case, MAC, (I take it you were hit in intersection, since violator hit you in side), here are questions that would have been asked:

    *Did our driver approach the intersection at a controlled speed which was reasonable for the conditions?

    *Was our driver prepared to stop before entering the intersection regardless of right of way?

    *Did our driver avoid entering an intersection on the amber signal?

    *Did our driver follow the precautionary steps required when approaching a flashing red or yellow signal?

    *At a blind corner, did our driver approach slowly, with a foot on the brake pedal?

    *Did our driver make certain all other drivers were stopping for a traffic light or stop sign?

    *Was our driver alert for the turns of other vehicles?

    *Did our driver avoid overtaking or passing at the intersection?

    *When our driver's signal changed to green, was the driver sure all cross traffic had stopped before proceeding?

    *If the view of cross traffic was blocked by vehicles beside our driver, did our driver remain at a standstill until the view was clear?

    *Did our driver signal a change in direction well in advance?

    *Did our driver allow oncoming traffic to clear before making a left turn?

    *Before turning left, did our driver turn and look to the rear for overtaking vehicles about to pass on the left?

    *Did our driver turn from the proper lane?

    *If in doublt, did our driver stop?

    *Did our driver avoid depending on others obeying traffic signs and signals?

    *Did our driver obey all traffic signs and signals?

    I realize that you said you were hit when he was traveling at 35 MPH and received 2 violations. This sounds like a good case to me. Good for getting your job back but if you recognize any of the questions that could have been in your case and favor, then it also sounds like you were terminated unjustly and you should also ask for back pay.

    Anymore, please feel free to PM me
  10. Damok

    Damok Member

    Race, after reading your replies I can't help but ask myself... why in the world would anyone want to drive a package car? That seems like such an incredible hassle to deal with. Even if you're safe and not at fault the sheer amount of pressure would drive me nuts.
  11. RockyRogue

    RockyRogue Agent of Change

    Because sadly, its the best living somebody without a college education can make. In many cases, even with a college degree its the best money a person can make. -Rocky
  12. 1timepu

    1timepu Member

    Sounds like you need to find a LAWYER, I can sniff a lawsuit
  13. Damok

    Damok Member

    I guess but a combo or even feeders would seem more appealing than all that.
  14. raceanoncr

    raceanoncr Well-Known Member

    Well, maybe, but not really. There are always extenuating circumstances, not the least of which, who you have investigating these things.

    We had one investigator here that took so many headers, they had to take him off CSI team. He's now taken off driver-trainer list also because of almost killing a pedestrian during a mgr/sup audit.

    Besides, go back and read some of questions again. Were they there to witness entire proceding? NO. So, when asked, "Did you take proper action?", what do you say?
  15. Damok

    Damok Member

    I hope you didn't take my reply as a criticism of your post. I was merely trying to state that I had no clue there was so much involved.
  16. raceanoncr

    raceanoncr Well-Known Member

    No, not at all did I take your post as criticism. I was merely stating that there COULD be also alot of questionable questions and answers due to who we have investigating.

    We also had one in another district that I am familiar with that was clearly in the right, the other was clearly in the wrong and admitted it, ON TV! Our driver was fired supposedly on the basis of one of these questions and answers. Well, our driver, er, excuse me, SOMEONE contacted the TV and the rest of the media to set matters straight, that is, to say he was fired. Lo and behold! He was reinstated PRONTO! Back pay, no other questions asked, end of discusssion. See what I mean about how things can go sour for the investigators?