packageguy
Well-Known Member
Sorry guys, TOS dead on. unless something is left out. he is right on
Fired and union did not accurately represent me.
- Thread starter brown0816
- Start date
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
TOS is dead on right, Except one little detail. He keeps calling it no call, no show.
Two problems, first he called them when he was arrested. He notified the center of his arrest and the inability to complete his job. Until such a time as he notifies UPS that he is able to return to work, UPS knows that he will not be back until that notification is given by the employee.
Just like calling in hurt On monday, I call you stating that I was hurt over the weekend, and I dont know when I can return to work. You were notified, and you knew I would not be at work for at least several days, if not weeks. While you might require me to get a note from the doctor, I do not have the obligation to call each day with my whereabouts. You were informed that I would need to be off for a while. Which he did.
You focused much of your post on your assumption of what happened to cause his arrest, and the state's time consuming efforts to arrest this serious criminal. All of which are assumptions, and some wrong. He was not on his route, he was at home eating lunch. Personal time. And last time I heard of law enforcement looking for someone, his home is the first on the list. I dont care what the guy did. It is not relevant when discussing the outcome. I have seen guys arrested for not paying child support, handcuffed, chained and shackled in leg irons like a mass murderer, when their only problem is not being able to find a job and pay child support. And, to clarify, child support court is one legal area where you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.
So, again, the devil is in the details. Some of which we dont know.
What we do know is that he properly and promptly notified management of the problem. He also, while personally not able to respond, notified them of his inability to not return to work for 30 days. The method of which you are attempting to discredit, but the notification was made.
d
Two problems, first he called them when he was arrested. He notified the center of his arrest and the inability to complete his job. Until such a time as he notifies UPS that he is able to return to work, UPS knows that he will not be back until that notification is given by the employee.
Just like calling in hurt On monday, I call you stating that I was hurt over the weekend, and I dont know when I can return to work. You were notified, and you knew I would not be at work for at least several days, if not weeks. While you might require me to get a note from the doctor, I do not have the obligation to call each day with my whereabouts. You were informed that I would need to be off for a while. Which he did.
You focused much of your post on your assumption of what happened to cause his arrest, and the state's time consuming efforts to arrest this serious criminal. All of which are assumptions, and some wrong. He was not on his route, he was at home eating lunch. Personal time. And last time I heard of law enforcement looking for someone, his home is the first on the list. I dont care what the guy did. It is not relevant when discussing the outcome. I have seen guys arrested for not paying child support, handcuffed, chained and shackled in leg irons like a mass murderer, when their only problem is not being able to find a job and pay child support. And, to clarify, child support court is one legal area where you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.
So, again, the devil is in the details. Some of which we dont know.
What we do know is that he properly and promptly notified management of the problem. He also, while personally not able to respond, notified them of his inability to not return to work for 30 days. The method of which you are attempting to discredit, but the notification was made.
d
Danny,
Ok, so if I follow your logic, and changing the scenario a wee-bit, lets say all the facts are as you state up to the point where he tells the company that he will be incarcerated for 2 years, are you suggesting that the company is "obligated" to hold his position open until he is released simply on the basis that upon his arrest while on duty he notified the company that he was unable to complete the days work (fair days work) and would be taken to jail for 2 calendar years?
This additional concept that you stated is missing a few "key" points.
"Just like calling in hurt On monday, I call you stating that I was hurt over the weekend, and I dont know when I can return to work. You were notified, and you knew I would not be at work for at least several days, if not weeks"
What you are missing is the requirement of a doctors note on the 5th day. This is in our contract. You can get hurt and miss work, but on the 5th day, you would have to show proof from a doctor in order to satisfy your obligation under our contract.
You can never call in on a monday and disappear for weeks and not expect the company to ask you for justification?
A doctors note is a part of the reporting process.
Some of you seem to "feel" that his telling the company that he was being arrested while on duty somehow suffices for an UNAUTHORIZED leave for 30 consecutive days simply because he made a phone call.
Unfortunately, "feelings" are not a part of our contract.
Specific language is a part of our contract and there is no rider or addendum that includes "feelings".
Unless you can demonstrate a section, article or rider that specifically includes "feelings" or language relating to being arrested while on duty, then I think you can stop trying to super sleuth this case.
Objective Data is all that is required in this case. Was the company within its rights under contract? YES, was the Union in violation of any BYLAWS or its constitution?? NO.
Case Closed.
Peace.
Ok, so if I follow your logic, and changing the scenario a wee-bit, lets say all the facts are as you state up to the point where he tells the company that he will be incarcerated for 2 years, are you suggesting that the company is "obligated" to hold his position open until he is released simply on the basis that upon his arrest while on duty he notified the company that he was unable to complete the days work (fair days work) and would be taken to jail for 2 calendar years?
This additional concept that you stated is missing a few "key" points.
"Just like calling in hurt On monday, I call you stating that I was hurt over the weekend, and I dont know when I can return to work. You were notified, and you knew I would not be at work for at least several days, if not weeks"
What you are missing is the requirement of a doctors note on the 5th day. This is in our contract. You can get hurt and miss work, but on the 5th day, you would have to show proof from a doctor in order to satisfy your obligation under our contract.
You can never call in on a monday and disappear for weeks and not expect the company to ask you for justification?
A doctors note is a part of the reporting process.
Some of you seem to "feel" that his telling the company that he was being arrested while on duty somehow suffices for an UNAUTHORIZED leave for 30 consecutive days simply because he made a phone call.
Unfortunately, "feelings" are not a part of our contract.
Specific language is a part of our contract and there is no rider or addendum that includes "feelings".
Unless you can demonstrate a section, article or rider that specifically includes "feelings" or language relating to being arrested while on duty, then I think you can stop trying to super sleuth this case.
Objective Data is all that is required in this case. Was the company within its rights under contract? YES, was the Union in violation of any BYLAWS or its constitution?? NO.
Case Closed.
Peace.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
TOS
We are not talking two years, we are talking 30 days. And like it or not, the company WAS kept in the loop as to what was going on. The driver did not have the oppertunity to call, he was in jail. So he did what he could to notify the company as to what was going on, including a letter from the police department.
You are correct, a doctors note is needed after a certain period of time. But with that note, you are excused from work for what ever time limit is suggested by the doctor. The driver is unable to report for work until such a time as he can. All it takes is one notification that he will not be back to work until the 30 days are up. They were notified in writing of his inability to show up for work.
As for feelings, I dont have any. I have been called a feelingless ba$turd many a time. Feeling dont play into the subject at hand. You keep repeating no call, no show, he called. Pure and simple. Quit trying to make it something its not.
What is obvious is that he was not able to assist in his defense. He was not able to respond to the charges, the union took that responsibility. You ask for objective data, there has been too little here to pass a good decision on. Too many things have not been posted in regards to the case. The driver has the rights to assist in his defense in this case, and both the union and the company should allow the hearing to take place. The outcome probably will not change, but at least the contract was followed, and he gets his day in "court"
As a side bar to this conversation, I was ordered to be in court once, and because UPS would not let me off, I also had a warrant issued for me. Does that make me a criminal like you want to paint this guy? And if part of his community service had to be done during working hours during the week, and UPS did not let him have off.......As you can see, there are other possibilities that could affect the outcome. All these things I have seen during my time at brown. So this is not wishful feelings.
Im not saying let the guy have his job back, personally based on what he posted, I dont think that will happen. But let the guy have his hearing. Then both sides can live with the results.
d
We are not talking two years, we are talking 30 days. And like it or not, the company WAS kept in the loop as to what was going on. The driver did not have the oppertunity to call, he was in jail. So he did what he could to notify the company as to what was going on, including a letter from the police department.
You are correct, a doctors note is needed after a certain period of time. But with that note, you are excused from work for what ever time limit is suggested by the doctor. The driver is unable to report for work until such a time as he can. All it takes is one notification that he will not be back to work until the 30 days are up. They were notified in writing of his inability to show up for work.
As for feelings, I dont have any. I have been called a feelingless ba$turd many a time. Feeling dont play into the subject at hand. You keep repeating no call, no show, he called. Pure and simple. Quit trying to make it something its not.
What is obvious is that he was not able to assist in his defense. He was not able to respond to the charges, the union took that responsibility. You ask for objective data, there has been too little here to pass a good decision on. Too many things have not been posted in regards to the case. The driver has the rights to assist in his defense in this case, and both the union and the company should allow the hearing to take place. The outcome probably will not change, but at least the contract was followed, and he gets his day in "court"
As a side bar to this conversation, I was ordered to be in court once, and because UPS would not let me off, I also had a warrant issued for me. Does that make me a criminal like you want to paint this guy? And if part of his community service had to be done during working hours during the week, and UPS did not let him have off.......As you can see, there are other possibilities that could affect the outcome. All these things I have seen during my time at brown. So this is not wishful feelings.
Im not saying let the guy have his job back, personally based on what he posted, I dont think that will happen. But let the guy have his hearing. Then both sides can live with the results.
d
Danny,
I think your coming around to the point. You said "We are not talking two years, we are talking 30 days."
Now you are talking about a "time period". 30 days vs. 2 years. Where is this defined? Where is the line drawn for "unauthorized leave"? You see, we cannot create language that does not exist. We can only deal with the cards that are dealt in the contract.
In arbitration, if you took a position that "it was only 30 days", the ARB would ask you where in the contract defines unauthorized leave for ANY time period.
You would then be in a position to stand there with a blank look on your face.
We can argue right or wrong all day long, but at the end of the day, we have to deal with what we can prove with language, and in this case, there is NOTHING in our contract that he can lean on.
The company holds all the cards.
This drivers own mistakes has cost him his career. It began and ended with him. Article 37 of the national master agreement states that "all employees must conduct themselves in the best interest of the employer".
Driving around with a bench warrant for some time isnt working "in the best interests of the employer". We must conduct ourselves like professionals at all times, and that includes our personal lives where both could intersect. This driver committed some crime (only he knows) and was found guilty and sentenced (community service) and he failed to complete, delay, extend or explain to UPS that this was a "personal issue".
If he had approached HR and told them he was running out of time, and needed some days to complete his service, he may have found some relief to his situation. Instead, he did nothing, let it go to a bench warrant, then reported to work everyday until he was ultimately arrested and forced to forfeit his bail and serve his related jail time.
Once arrested, there is no avenue in our contract for him to travel. He has to physically report or telephonically report out ill. If he had made contact with his supervisor and asked to use all his "entitlements" during the 30 days, he would be in a better position, but this didnt happen.
Being in jail places a real burden on this driver, however, the responsibility remains with the driver.
As long as there is NO language that addresses unauthorized leave (like an arrest) we cannot expect the company to hold our positions open until we return.
If it was as simple as telling the company that I was not going to be there for three weeks because while I was on route, my wife asked me to take her to the bahamas and I was leaving the truck on the street for them to retrieve, then I would do that once a month!
The company would have to hold my route for me until I returned.
=)
But thats not reality. We have to report each and everyday, and not once a month. Its a requirement of the job.
Peace.
I think your coming around to the point. You said "We are not talking two years, we are talking 30 days."
Now you are talking about a "time period". 30 days vs. 2 years. Where is this defined? Where is the line drawn for "unauthorized leave"? You see, we cannot create language that does not exist. We can only deal with the cards that are dealt in the contract.
In arbitration, if you took a position that "it was only 30 days", the ARB would ask you where in the contract defines unauthorized leave for ANY time period.
You would then be in a position to stand there with a blank look on your face.
We can argue right or wrong all day long, but at the end of the day, we have to deal with what we can prove with language, and in this case, there is NOTHING in our contract that he can lean on.
The company holds all the cards.
This drivers own mistakes has cost him his career. It began and ended with him. Article 37 of the national master agreement states that "all employees must conduct themselves in the best interest of the employer".
Driving around with a bench warrant for some time isnt working "in the best interests of the employer". We must conduct ourselves like professionals at all times, and that includes our personal lives where both could intersect. This driver committed some crime (only he knows) and was found guilty and sentenced (community service) and he failed to complete, delay, extend or explain to UPS that this was a "personal issue".
If he had approached HR and told them he was running out of time, and needed some days to complete his service, he may have found some relief to his situation. Instead, he did nothing, let it go to a bench warrant, then reported to work everyday until he was ultimately arrested and forced to forfeit his bail and serve his related jail time.
Once arrested, there is no avenue in our contract for him to travel. He has to physically report or telephonically report out ill. If he had made contact with his supervisor and asked to use all his "entitlements" during the 30 days, he would be in a better position, but this didnt happen.
Being in jail places a real burden on this driver, however, the responsibility remains with the driver.
As long as there is NO language that addresses unauthorized leave (like an arrest) we cannot expect the company to hold our positions open until we return.
If it was as simple as telling the company that I was not going to be there for three weeks because while I was on route, my wife asked me to take her to the bahamas and I was leaving the truck on the street for them to retrieve, then I would do that once a month!
The company would have to hold my route for me until I returned.
=)
But thats not reality. We have to report each and everyday, and not once a month. Its a requirement of the job.
Peace.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
TOS
In the end, we must agree to disagree on some of the issues.
I still contend that he should have his day and have his case heard with him present.
I totally understand that if its not in the contract, we cant use it. And as such, as you say, the company holds at least most of the good cards.
I hope you have a great weekend.
best
d
In the end, we must agree to disagree on some of the issues.
I still contend that he should have his day and have his case heard with him present.
I totally understand that if its not in the contract, we cant use it. And as such, as you say, the company holds at least most of the good cards.
I hope you have a great weekend.
best
d
Agreed.
Peace.
Peace.
Dark_Team_135
Well-Known Member
What if there have been others that have been in this situation and they were allowed to return to work when they were released?
We had a part-time employee out for two months while he was locked up. The story was his mother was sick but everyone, including management, knew he was in jail...
In another case a part-time employee was in jail for a month and was allowed to return to work when he was released. Maybe while locked up, the guy could just have gone to the infirmary and gotten a doctors note to cover his absence...
Has anyone else heard of employees going to jail for a month or more and getting their job back afterwards?
We had a part-time employee out for two months while he was locked up. The story was his mother was sick but everyone, including management, knew he was in jail...
In another case a part-time employee was in jail for a month and was allowed to return to work when he was released. Maybe while locked up, the guy could just have gone to the infirmary and gotten a doctors note to cover his absence...
Has anyone else heard of employees going to jail for a month or more and getting their job back afterwards?
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
It is much easier to hold a position and cover absences in the part-time ranks than it is for a full-timer.
Anonymous 10
Guest
You mean you can't just get a note from your mommy if your in jail.
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
)
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
I am sure there have been many such. But as TOS and I both mentioned, there are a lot of behind the scene information that was not posted on this one. So we really dont know what exactly caused the company to pursue termination.
Example.
Two drivers. Both have to miss work. One is a good employee, so they bend over back-wards to get him back to work. The other is a real pain in the behind. Misses work all the time, causes trouble at work, has attitude issues when it comes to doing his job etc. So, they use this occurrence to let him go, because he gave them a golden opportunity.
While it might not seem fair, the saying "dont crap on the table you get your food from" comes to mind.
d
What really makes the most difference is the work record, performance, attendance and general attitude at work.
In the business, we call this "what does he have in the bank"? Its a question the division manager would ask in a meeting. Does the guy have anything in the bank? Like, hard worker, never late, never call in sick, volunteers to help and such.
Then, despite the contract, a deal could be struck to return an employee to work. Ive done it many times at a place called the "pancake house" where I meet off property, eat a nice breakfast and discuss a situation. There, a discussion about what an employee has to offer despite whatever wrong doing he may have done occurs, and if there is enough "in the bank", a decision to bring back the employee will be made.
These types of scenarios dont require hearings, trials or panels. This is our job as an agent of the Union.
There is a rule to follow when in the business of representing others and it goes:
"when youre right, you fight! When your wrong, negotiate!"
Cases like this one will never be won in panel, arbitration or courtrooms. This guys only chance is to use what he has in the bank to convince the company he is worth the trouble. If the account is empty, then so are his chances.
Peace.
In the business, we call this "what does he have in the bank"? Its a question the division manager would ask in a meeting. Does the guy have anything in the bank? Like, hard worker, never late, never call in sick, volunteers to help and such.
Then, despite the contract, a deal could be struck to return an employee to work. Ive done it many times at a place called the "pancake house" where I meet off property, eat a nice breakfast and discuss a situation. There, a discussion about what an employee has to offer despite whatever wrong doing he may have done occurs, and if there is enough "in the bank", a decision to bring back the employee will be made.
These types of scenarios dont require hearings, trials or panels. This is our job as an agent of the Union.
There is a rule to follow when in the business of representing others and it goes:
"when youre right, you fight! When your wrong, negotiate!"
Cases like this one will never be won in panel, arbitration or courtrooms. This guys only chance is to use what he has in the bank to convince the company he is worth the trouble. If the account is empty, then so are his chances.
Peace.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
I don't like to see anyone lose their job....
But thats funny....
How about someone.... anyone.... just read the contract.
Article 16 Section 2 of the Master gives an employee the ability to request
a leave of absence. Read it.
All this other speculation is laughable.
-Bug-
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Bug
If you continue reading the rest, it says
"If the leave is not foreseeable, the employee shall submit the written request as soon as possible, and shall include an explanation why the leave was not forseeable."
One problem, he did not submit the request. Neither did the union, who should be looking out for the members best interests. And that is why he should have his chance at a hearing with him present.
Further though, it says
"The employer and union shall respond to the request in writing within ten (10) days after receiving the request."
Well, per the poster, the company did respond within 10 days, by sending him the certified letter. I dont know if they gave a warning letter first, or jumped straight to termination, but they did respond. But no word of what the union did. So again, the company complied, but not the union.
Also, when you put your written request in, even after the fact, the contract does not state anywhere that the company must honor your request. All it says is that they must respond. So in this case, if he had requested the leave after the fact, they would totally be within their rights to say no to the request, and demand that he return to work. Section 2 does not give the employee an automatic leave, even if it is put in writing, and even after the fact.
So again my stand is that the employee should have a hearing at which he can participate. The union in this case clearly did not attempt to look out for the rights of the member.
d
If you continue reading the rest, it says
"If the leave is not foreseeable, the employee shall submit the written request as soon as possible, and shall include an explanation why the leave was not forseeable."
One problem, he did not submit the request. Neither did the union, who should be looking out for the members best interests. And that is why he should have his chance at a hearing with him present.
Further though, it says
"The employer and union shall respond to the request in writing within ten (10) days after receiving the request."
Well, per the poster, the company did respond within 10 days, by sending him the certified letter. I dont know if they gave a warning letter first, or jumped straight to termination, but they did respond. But no word of what the union did. So again, the company complied, but not the union.
Also, when you put your written request in, even after the fact, the contract does not state anywhere that the company must honor your request. All it says is that they must respond. So in this case, if he had requested the leave after the fact, they would totally be within their rights to say no to the request, and demand that he return to work. Section 2 does not give the employee an automatic leave, even if it is put in writing, and even after the fact.
So again my stand is that the employee should have a hearing at which he can participate. The union in this case clearly did not attempt to look out for the rights of the member.
d
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Before I have to correct you in a public forum....
Please retract your statement and re-read the language.
-Bug-
BIGUNIONGUY,
I dont know if you understand that simply reading a sentence makes you an expert, but understanding language is a different animal.
While I appreciate your efforts, let me snuff out your theory in one quick step.
You quoted: "If the leave is not foreseeable, the employee shall submit the written request as soon as possible, and shall include an explanation why the leave was not forseeable."
One problem with your theory other than you are wrong.
In this sentence, it contains whats called a CAVEAT, and that CAVEAT is this: "and shall include an explanation why the leave was not forseeable."
In this case, the WORD FORSEEABLE plays the most important part of the sentence.
The driver involved KNEW, had KNOWLEDGE, EXPECTED and with full understanding, anticipated being arrested at some point because he failed to complete his community service.
Therefore, it cannot be UNFORSEEN.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Leave of absence can be used many ways, but getting out of an arrest while on duty isnt one of them.
If he had no idea there was a warrant for his arrest, and for some reason a warrant was issued without his knowledge, then THAT would be UNFORESEEABLE.
This is why the word UNFORSEEABLE is used. By definition its explained:
Etymology
foresee + -able
[edit] Adjective
foreseeable (comparative more foreseeable, superlative most foreseeable)
Peace.
I dont know if you understand that simply reading a sentence makes you an expert, but understanding language is a different animal.
While I appreciate your efforts, let me snuff out your theory in one quick step.
You quoted: "If the leave is not foreseeable, the employee shall submit the written request as soon as possible, and shall include an explanation why the leave was not forseeable."
One problem with your theory other than you are wrong.
In this sentence, it contains whats called a CAVEAT, and that CAVEAT is this: "and shall include an explanation why the leave was not forseeable."
In this case, the WORD FORSEEABLE plays the most important part of the sentence.
The driver involved KNEW, had KNOWLEDGE, EXPECTED and with full understanding, anticipated being arrested at some point because he failed to complete his community service.
Therefore, it cannot be UNFORSEEN.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Leave of absence can be used many ways, but getting out of an arrest while on duty isnt one of them.
If he had no idea there was a warrant for his arrest, and for some reason a warrant was issued without his knowledge, then THAT would be UNFORESEEABLE.
This is why the word UNFORSEEABLE is used. By definition its explained:
Etymology
foresee + -able
[edit] Adjective
foreseeable (comparative more foreseeable, superlative most foreseeable)
- able to be foreseen or anticipated
Peace.
BUG,
By the way, you owe dannyboy an apology.
You said:
"How about someone.... anyone.... just read the contract.
Article 16 Section 2 of the Master gives an employee the ability to requesta leave of absence. Read it."
All this other speculation is laughable.
Theres more to language than just reading a sentence. Understanding its application is the value. DBoy knows this and apparently you dont.
Peace.
By the way, you owe dannyboy an apology.
You said:
"How about someone.... anyone.... just read the contract.
Article 16 Section 2 of the Master gives an employee the ability to requesta leave of absence. Read it."
All this other speculation is laughable.
Theres more to language than just reading a sentence. Understanding its application is the value. DBoy knows this and apparently you dont.
Peace.
The OP didn't make it clear as to if the meeting occurred while he was in jail or after the 30 days. If he was in jail, then I'd say he should pursue a failure to represent NLRB charge. It might vary around the country, but generally if something is decided at panel the Union won't allow appeal to regional/national/arbitration. The member would have to exercise other options available to him.
Similar threads
