Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Eam Dispute
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="639OldTimer" data-source="post: 402705" data-attributes="member: 13059"><p>I contacted the BA at 639 and he told me that this case is being arbitrated out of Local 150 in Sacramento, Ca. by the IBT. He said that he spoke with the attorneys handling the case and that they told him that at least one and possibly two more days of hearings are scheduled for mid October and the first of November. He was told that hall who is the director of the Package Division at the IBT is scheduled to testify.</p><p> </p><p>He said he remembers the member coming out to San Diego last October to testify. He feels that the 639 case is a real good case. He told me that in 1987 when Article 40 was created that the Company assured the Union that no package drivers would lose any work to part time air drivers. He did say that there is a practice of using 22.3 combo employees to do the EAM work. The Gaithersburg building is different in the Company has not created any combo jobs to include morning air. They do have P.M. Air & car wash combo positions.</p><p> </p><p>The BA has always been a straight shooter with me and I trust his judgement. He told me that while he is somewhat familiar with the California case he believes the Gaithersburg case is very strong. However since the California case was before the Gaithersburg case he has to wait for the hearings to finish and for the arbitrator to make a decision. He said he would be very optimistic that a decision is made before the end of the year.</p><p> </p><p>Lets hope we get a good decision on this case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="639OldTimer, post: 402705, member: 13059"] I contacted the BA at 639 and he told me that this case is being arbitrated out of Local 150 in Sacramento, Ca. by the IBT. He said that he spoke with the attorneys handling the case and that they told him that at least one and possibly two more days of hearings are scheduled for mid October and the first of November. He was told that hall who is the director of the Package Division at the IBT is scheduled to testify. He said he remembers the member coming out to San Diego last October to testify. He feels that the 639 case is a real good case. He told me that in 1987 when Article 40 was created that the Company assured the Union that no package drivers would lose any work to part time air drivers. He did say that there is a practice of using 22.3 combo employees to do the EAM work. The Gaithersburg building is different in the Company has not created any combo jobs to include morning air. They do have P.M. Air & car wash combo positions. The BA has always been a straight shooter with me and I trust his judgement. He told me that while he is somewhat familiar with the California case he believes the Gaithersburg case is very strong. However since the California case was before the Gaithersburg case he has to wait for the hearings to finish and for the arbitrator to make a decision. He said he would be very optimistic that a decision is made before the end of the year. Lets hope we get a good decision on this case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Eam Dispute
Top