Filing Labor Charges

[Bubblehead]

So I'm Nancy II then?

It's not so much a name as it is a way of life.

 

[Integrity]

Please forgive me for being dense or ignorant on this matter but I am confused.

In light of the purpose of the NLRB and the rights that it exists to protect;

Why would this issue be one that would be reported to this agency?

Can someone help me understand this better?

I thank you in advance.

Sincerely,
I

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Speak for yourself my pension is the only one that's 100% fully funded.

Not all of it.

Depends on how you look at it.

If Central States defaults.... UPS is liable for that portion.

So really.... it is 100% funded.



-Bug-

 

[Bubblehead]

Depends on how you look at it.

If Central States defaults.... UPS is liable for that portion.
7
So really.... it is 100% funded.



-Bug-

For the duratin of this contract.
It could change in any subsequent contract.

 

[Bubblehead]

Please forgive me for being dense or ignorant on this matter but I am confused.

In light of the purpose of the NLRB and the rights that it exists to protect;

Why would this issue be one that would be reported to this agency?

Can someone help me understand this better?

I thank you in advance.

Sincerely,
I

His weingarten rights are being violated.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

It could change in any subsequent contract.

Others trust in God....

I trust hall.



-Bug-

 

[turdburglar]

brownmonster makes some good points----turdburglar does appear to be an agitator. Involving the NLRB would be a waste of time and resources. Mgt cut his hours to send him a message--it is up to him what he does in response.

I think it may help your understanding of my motivation if you read my story in my "Moved to Unload" thread as well. As Menotyou stated about herself, I am simply responding in kind. Would it be better if I simply let management walk all over me? By the way, what good points did brownmonster bring up, anyways? Is it the post about getting hours cut at Burger King? Yes, his son would have a right to call the NLRB if Burger King cut his hours for, say, bringing health issues in the restaurant to their attention. Similarly, I am getting my hours cut for holding UPS accountable to the contract. Both cases are retaliation, plain and simple.

I already responded to management. I talked to my steward at the end of the day, and he straightened the situation out by the time I went back to work the next day. The message that I sent was that I know my rights, and that management could not ever intimidate me to the point that I would stop filing grievances, no matter what underhanded tactics they used.

 

[turdburglar]

His weingarten rights are being violated.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is not the fact that my Weingarten rights are being violated. I have exercised my Weingarten rights when a supervisor attempted to discipline me for misloads, and he simply got angry, threatened my job, and left without giving me the discipline. My Weingarten rights have never been violated ("Weingarten rights" refer to the the right to have union representation during an investigatory interview by management that may result in discipline). However, my right to engage in union activity has been violated. The following comes straight from the NLRB's website, and gives a general statement of what employers are forbidden from doing in regard to union activity, and two specific rights that have been violated by UPS in my situation:

The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or from working together to improve terms and conditions of employment, or refraining from any such activity.
Examples of employer conduct that violates the law:
Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.
This rule was violated twice, once when I was moved to a far heavier load area for filing grievances (the full-time supervisor actually said to the steward that she would move me for filing grievances, since she is not too bright), and a second time when I was moved to unload so that my hours could be cut.
Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.
This rule has been violated countless times as management continually threatened (both explicitly and implicitly) that I would lose my job if I did not stop filing grievances.

Based on these two rules alone, I have a right to file with the NLRB. Management has clearly shown that they do not intend to stop threatening me and retaliating against me for filing grievances. I am in the right because what I am doing is legal (as the contract was signed by people far above the management in my building, and by the Teamsters, and is a legally binding contract), and is technically a contractual obligation of mine as a Teamster. They are in the wrong because what they are doing is a violation of federal law. It does not get much more clear-cut than this.

 

[Bubblehead]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it is not the fact that my Weingarten rights are being violated. I have exercised my Weingarten rights when a supervisor attempted to discipline me for misloads, and he simply got angry, threatened my job, and left without giving me the discipline. My Weingarten rights have never been violated ("Weingarten rights" refer to the the right to have union representation during an investigatory interview by management that may result in discipline). However, my right to engage in union activity has been violated. The following comes straight from the NLRB's website, and gives a general statement of what employers are forbidden from doing in regard to union activity, and two specific rights that have been violated by UPS in my situation:

The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or from working together to improve terms and conditions of employment, or refraining from any such activity.
Examples of employer conduct that violates the law:
Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.
This rule was violated twice, once when I was moved to a far heavier load area for filing grievances (the full-time supervisor actually said to the steward that she would move me for filing grievances, since she is not too bright), and a second time when I was moved to unload so that my hours could be cut.
Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.
This rule has been violated countless times as management continually threatened (both explicitly and implicitly) that I would lose my job if I did not stop filing grievances.

Based on these two rules alone, I have a right to file with the NLRB. Management has clearly shown that they do not intend to stop threatening me and retaliating against me for filing grievances. I am in the right because what I am doing is legal, and is technically a contractual obligation of mine as a Teamster (this part should not be hard to understand, as the contract was signed by people far above the management in my building, and by the Teamsters). They are in the wrong because what they are doing is a violation of federal law. It does not get much more clear-cut than this.

I stand corrected.
Labor charges in order none the less.