Fired for job abandonment

[Mugarolla]

Trust me, I know more than you" doesn't cut it.

Let me help you out.

Apparently, everyone nows more than you.

Update: 4 others have joined me for job abandonment. Anyone who clocked out without consent of management that day was discharged.

You spend more time on personal attacks

Personal attacks?

Seriously?

and you base your entire argument on assumptions

Let me help you out again.

Update: 4 others have joined me for job abandonment. Anyone who clocked out without consent of management that day was discharged.

 

[Mugarolla]

and you base your entire argument on assumptions

I separated this portion because it really ticks me off and shows how out of touch you really are.

The OP himself stated that he left his job and went home without informing anyone.

How the hell is this assuming anything.

To assume something would be what you did, that maybe there were extenuating circumstances.

I based it on facts presented, by the OP himself, I did not assume anything.

You did.

 

[What The Hawk?]

4 years with ups definetly not a newcomer.

Anyway, today im working and i get called in to a discharge paper for job abandonment.

Story goes im utility right now, because of an injury i cant lift over 50lbs and cannot be in my usual sort aisle or preloading trucks i been labeled permant disabled. So i kind of just roam to where needed somedays they forget about me completely. Most days i break bags for belts into totes, as soon as im done with my job i leave in risk of getting called out for stealing time.

Back to today, he tells me i had abandoned my job and therefore it was grounds for dismissal i was in the biggest shock because i been back for 3 weeks since my injury and have left like this before. I really wish i would have looked for a super and just daud bye before i walked out.

Steward said not to worry that i will get my job back in no time. Gave me # to BA. BA happened to be meeting up with my management today and will mention my case. If notresolved today he said it would resolve itself within a week for wrongful termination because i wasnt even given a warning or even a he said she said.

I know i screwed up by not telling at lest a part timer that i was clocking out. What are my chances of getting my job back? At this point i can even use the negative comments. Im a mess right now just thinking about my 6 month old and his benefits.

Never tell anyone other than a SUP that you're clocking out btw. That should be common sense. We get people who walk out all the time because their drivers are there. It's BS.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Let me help you out.

Apparently, everyone nows more than you.









Personal attacks?

Seriously?



Let me help you out again.

The 4 other people getting terminated only strengthens the argument that there was some understanding that what they did was ok. You assumed that there were no extenuating circumstances, even though the OP clearly stated that there were. Again, my only assumption was that he was being truthful, you ignored everything he said that did not fit your presumed narrative, or assumed he was lying.

Your argument tool box consists of:

I'm right, you're wrong.

I've seen a thing or two.

You need to increase your understanding of absolutely everything.

Management is always justified in everything they say and do.

Simple mistakes are completely terminable offenses.

Employees are responsible for everything, management is responsible for nothing, and there is nothing wrong with that.

No wonder you have a hard time winning cases at panels. I guess it's up to people like me to make sure cases don't get that far.

Also, to go back to a previous post, contract law is a part of business law...

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Possibly, not not contractually required.

It actually is contractually required.

See how easy it is to argue your way?

 

[Mugarolla]

You assumed that there were no extenuating circumstances

No, you did.

I responded based on what he said.

Here is what he said...

Most days i break bags for belts into totes, as soon as im done with my job i leave in risk of getting called out for stealing time.

Again, my only assumption was that he was being truthful, you ignored everything he said that did not fit your presumed narrative, or assumed he was lying.

I ignored nothing. Again, this is what he said...

Most days i break bags for belts into totes, as soon as im done with my job i leave in risk of getting called out for stealing time.

And remember, stealing time was never brought up by UPS.

I'm right, you're wrong.

In this case, yes.

I've seen a thing or two.

An undrstatement.

You need to increase your understanding of absolutely everything.

Never said that. Again, you assumed.

Management is always justified in everything they say and do.

Never said that. Again, you assumed.

Simple mistakes are completely terminable offenses.

Never said that. Again, you assumed.

Employees are responsible for everything, management is responsible for nothing, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Never said that. Again, you assumed.

No wonder you have a hard time winning cases at panels. I guess it's up to people like me to make sure cases don't get that far.

Where did you get this from? Again, you are assuming.

Do we see a pattern here?

It actually is contractually required.

Article and Section Number please?

Or are you assuming again?

 

[Mugarolla]

Also, to go back to a previous post, contract law is a part of business law...

Commercial law or Business Law

The body of law which governs business and commerce and is often considered to be a branch of civil law and deals both with issues of private law and public law. Commercial law regulates corporate contracts, hiring practices, and the manufacture and sales of consumer goods.

Contract Law

The body of law that governs oral and written agreements associated with exchange of goods and services, money, and properties. It includes topics such as the nature of contractual obligations, limitation of actions, freedom of contract, privity of contract, termination of contract, and covers also agency relationships, commercial paper, and contracts of employment.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Commercial law or Business Law

The body of law which governs business and commerce and is often considered to be a branch of civil law and deals both with issues of private law and public law. Commercial law regulates corporate contracts, hiring practices, and the manufacture and sales of consumer goods.

Contract Law

The body of law that governs oral and written agreements associated with exchange of goods and services, money, and properties. It includes topics such as the nature of contractual obligations, limitation of actions, freedom of contract, privity of contract, termination of contract, and covers also agency relationships, commercial paper, and contracts of employment.

I'll just get this out of the way. I was referring to the class Business Law 101, as I referred to in my post, to which you responded that I should:

Read up on Contract Law.

Contract law is taught in business law class.

Good use of Google though.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Article and Section Number please?

Gladly. According to OP's shirt, he is a member of Local 396, which is located in So Cal, which is covered by the Western Region Supplement, Article 28, section 2 Grievance Procedure. Clocking out early is not mentioned in the list of offenses eligible for termination without a warning letter. Which I find a little odd, because you mentioned progressive discipline as though you knew what it was when you said:

I am sure he is referring to progressive discipline, not the warning system.

Personal attacks?

Yes, also referred to as ad hominem fallacy, attacking a person or some attribute of the person (such as qualifications) rather than the substance of their argument. Here are the examples.

Welcome to UPS.

You may eventually learn that.

Open your eyes a little wider, and you may then see.

Apparently, everyone nows more than you.

You never been to a State Panel or JAC, have you?

Calls into question my qualifications rather than rebutting any of my arguments.

Ya think?

This one is exceptionally funny because you completely missed the point of what you were responding to. The reason you attempt to call someone before assuming job abandonment is because there may be extenuating circumstances. responding "ya think?" suggests that you agreed with me, but then you went on to contradict that agreement when you said:

Not management's job to call the employee who abandoned his job to see if he really quit.

Does not matter about enforcement. If a policy is written, and violated, you are subject to repercussions, unless they have never enforced it. If they have enforced it, just inconsistently, it's the luck of the draw if you violate a policy, but doesn't mean you won't get disciplined.

Wrong. Here's a little article about the subject that uses an example that is shockingly similar to this case.
Employers Must Enforce Policies Uniformly - FindLaw

And they know it. It keeps employees in line. Welcome to UPS.

I did not assume anything.

I ignored nothing.

Assumption:

The OP was a utility worker. Walked around helping where needed. No set job.

What you ignored:

Most days i break bags for belts into totes, as soon as im done with my job i leave in risk of getting called out for stealing time.

This particular day i did have a set job.

Assumption:

Maybe he left with good intention, but that is hypothesizing, or speculting on our part, isn't it.

What you ignored:

I solemnl swear i was done with my work so i assumed i would clock out and leave just like many of the older people do.

Most days i break bags for belts into totes, as soon as im done with my job i leave in risk of getting called out for stealing time.

Assumption:

And did you see the real truth came out?

What you ignored:

Sup came up to me and said to shut down my area i was done then never came back.

Just last week (on same job) when i was done i was left to my work area until sort when down i did look for a sup he said just stay in your area. I dont mind standing...

This last one is a little confusing, and perhaps OP can clarify, but I took it as a contrast from one day last week where he was told to stay versus the day he was told he was done. Nothing in these additions change the original facts, simply support the fact that he was not justifiably terminated.

The argument tool box thing was tongue in cheek, I can find all the examples to show where I pulled them from, but I'm about spent.

Correcting you is hard, because there is so much to correct, and you keep bringing up straw man arguments. So many fallacies. I appreciate the exercise, but please don't take any lack of further response as me conceding any points. I just have better things to do.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

Gladly. According to OP's shirt, he is a member of Local 396, which is located in So Cal, which is covered by the Western Region Supplement, Article 28, section 2 Grievance Procedure. Clocking out early is not mentioned in the list of offenses eligible for termination without a warning letter. Which I find a little odd, because you mentioned progressive discipline as though you knew what it was when you said:






Yes, also referred to as ad hominem fallacy, attacking a person or some attribute of the person (such as qualifications) rather than the substance of their argument. Here are the examples.











Calls into question my qualifications rather than rebutting any of my arguments.



This one is exceptionally funny because you completely missed the point of what you were responding to. The reason you attempt to call someone before assuming job abandonment is because there may be extenuating circumstances. responding "ya think?" suggests that you agreed with me, but then you went on to contradict that agreement when you said:







Wrong. Here's a little article about the subject that uses an example that is shockingly similar to this case.
Employers Must Enforce Policies Uniformly - FindLaw








Assumption:



What you ignored:





Assumption:



What you ignored:





Assumption:



What you ignored:





This last one is a little confusing, and perhaps OP can clarify, but I took it as a contrast from one day last week where he was told to stay versus the day he was told he was done. Nothing in these additions change the original facts, simply support the fact that he was not justifiably terminated.

The argument tool box thing was tongue in cheek, I can find all the examples to show where I pulled them from, but I'm about spent.

Correcting you is hard, because there is so much to correct, and you keep bringing up straw man arguments. So many fallacies. I appreciate the exercise, but please don't take any lack of further response as me conceding any points. I just have better things to do.

heck, he was calling Article 3 "crazy' a week ago when he asserted ...mug that is......
that a deaf person cant drive a commercial vehicle but Arty was correct. too bad mug doesnt know the rules altho he is often wrong.

 

[Mugarolla]

Gladly. According to OP's shirt, he is a member of Local 396, which is located in So Cal, which is covered by the Western Region Supplement, Article 28, section 2 Grievance Procedure. Clocking out early is not mentioned in the list of offenses eligible for termination without a warning letter. Which I find a little odd, because you mentioned progressive discipline as though you knew what it was when you said:

You may want to read the summary judgement of this Arbitration Award. A19841016aWP

Yes, also referred to as ad hominem fallacy, attacking a person or some attribute of the person (such as qualifications) rather than the substance of their argument. Here are the examples.

OK. To say that you're out in left field is a personal attack.....well, what can I say.

The reason you attempt to call someone before assuming job abandonment is because there may be extenuating circumstances.

Not the employers responsibility. This is the employees responsibility.

The employee clocked out and went home, without notifying anything.

Wrong. Here's a little article about the subject that uses an example that is shockingly similar to this case.

What you can or cannot win in a court of law is far different than what you can or cannot win in a grievance panel.

Real world vs. fantasy.

Sorry, you will probably consider that a personal attack also.

As for the rest of your replies, about assumptions.

Let me help you out once more. Maybe in this form you will see the light.

Oh crap, another personal attack?

So i kind of just roam to where needed somedays they forget about me completely.

Most days i break bags for belts into totes, as soon as im done with my job i leave in risk of getting called out for stealing time.

I know i screwed up by not telling at lest a part timer that i was clocking out.

I solemnl swear i was done with my work so i assumed i would clock out and leave

I got comfortable plain and simple. Should have asked if i was free to go since its peak they may have needed me.

I know i screwed up, but im telling the honest truth.

Update: 4 others have joined me for job abandonment. Anyone who clocked out without consent of management that day was discharged.

This particular day i did have a set job. Just last week (on same job) when i was done i was left to my work area until sort when down i did look for a sup he said just stay in your area.

I dont mind standing around but not when managment considers it stealing time. Which is why i ended up just clocking out and calling it a day.

Not my job to be chasin down supervisors its their job me to chase me down and instruct the worker

 

[Mugarolla]

heck, he was calling Article 3 "crazy' a week ago when he asserted ...mug that is......
that a deaf person cant drive a commercial vehicle but Arty was correct. too bad mug doesnt know the rules altho he is often wrong.

I'm sure you're referring to this...

I thought about this a little more. You're crazy.

You're saying that if a person cannot pass a DOT physical, to just let them drive a truck under 10,000 lbs?

What are some disqualifying factors?

High blood pressure. You are at a far greater risk of a heart attack or stroke. The DOT does not want you having a heart attack or stroke, losing control of your vehicle, and hurting or killing yourself or someone else.

Yet you want UPS to put this person in a 9,000 lb truck with the same high blood pressure?

What would be the difference in crashing a 10,000 lb truck or a 9,000 lb truck? That 1,000 lb less would not make much of a difference.

How about diabetes? Possibility of seizures or diabetic shock. Again, the increased risk of you possibly crashing your vehicle.

So you want UPS to put you in a vehicle under 10,000 just to skirt the DOT regulations?

Or do you just want UPS to pick and choose on what the disqualifying factor was as to whether or not to put them in a truck less than 10,000 lbs? Eye sight, loss of limb, hearing, etc?

Other issues are what route, or area is this person going to do? Whose routes are you going to split up to make up a route for this person? Or which person are you going to try and kick off their route for this guy?

Do you see where I am coming from?

Sorry. But it ain't going to happen at a multi billion dollar global company.

I am all for accommodating their disability or DOT disqualifying condition in a non driving job.

The FMCSA did relax the rules for hearing, sorry.

They did not relax any other rules to obtain a DOT Medical Card. Do you need me to list them for you?

And you registered today, just to post this.

Let me guess, @Article 3 in disguise.

 

[UpsAngel]

Im back.

 

[Mugarolla]

Im back.

Glad to see you're back.

I told you that you would be.

Please let a sup know before leaving.

 

[rod]

Im back.

good---now find a better hiding place this time

 

[zubenelgenubi]

You may want to read the summary judgement of this Arbitration Award. A19841016aWP

Ok, you made this one too easy. Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about. I guess you didn't think I'd actually look this up.
I will gladly concede these points to you. Termination and voluntary quit does break seniority, and if the OP voluntarily quits as part of the terms of accepting a commutation award of his workers comp claim, then I agree that he is not entitled to holiday pay.

I will say that I appreciate you turning me on to these summary judgments, looks like I have some reading material to keep me busy. The one helpful piece of information I got out of our interaction.

 

[Frankie's Friend]

I'm sure you're referring to this...




The FMCSA did relax the rules for hearing, sorry.

They did not relax any other rules to obtain a DOT Medical Card. Do you need me to list them for you?

And you registered today, just to post this.

Let me guess, @Article 3 in disguise.

no. and that was not what was observed. art 3 can answer for their self. i just get tired of the bickering & insulting of brothers on here. there are more watching that feel the same as us.

 

[Mugarolla]

Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about. I guess you didn't think I'd actually look this up.

Sorry. Gave you the wrong case number. A20000830aWR

For those that cannot look it up...

I will say that I appreciate you turning me on to these summary judgments, looks like I have some reading material to keep me busy. The one helpful piece of information I got out of our interaction.

Glad I could help. Read on.

i just get tired of the bickering & insulting of brothers on here.

You don't have to read it, hell, you could put me on ignore.

For a guy with 2 posts, who joined yesterday, how could you get tired of the bickering and insults?

And, by the way, there is a difference between a debate and bickering.

And insults? You need thicker skin. Oh, I'm sorry, did you take that as an insult?

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Sorry. Gave you the wrong case number. A20000830aWR

For those that cannot look it up...

View attachment 168685





Glad I could help. Read on.



You don't have to read it, hell, you could put me on ignore.

For a guy with 2 posts, who joined yesterday, how could you get tired of the bickering and insults?

And, by the way, there is a difference between a debate and bickering.

And insults? You need thicker skin. Oh, I'm sorry, did you take that as an insult?

Ok, now I have something to work with. This summary states that the cardinal sins were established as exclusive in the 1997 negotiations. There is one case that the arbitrator used to make his decision to uphold inclusivity, ignoring the negotiated terms. I'm not going to try and tell an arbitrator he was wrong, but that doesn't seem right to me. And finally, where the case in this summary differs from our case "The grievant was warned that if he left, he would be considered abandoning his job."
The OP did not mention such a warning, and the information he provided suggests that he did not receive such a warning. I'm sure that, at a panel, the company would be able to drum up a part time sup willing to swear that the warning was given, but the fact that the company can get away with perjury with no consequence does not make it right. And, without written documentation or witness statements of the warning it becomes he said/she said. The fact that this summary brings up the warning indicates that the warning was documented or witnessed. This is why you demand a steward's presence when there is any mention of discipline.

 

[Mugarolla]

This summary states that the cardinal sins were established as exclusive in the 1997 negotiations.

But he also mentioned a Federal District Court Review that has survived post 1997 as being inclusive.

He also went on to say "The Arbitrator is not convinced that the pre-1997 awards upholding the inclusive theory of cardinal sins should be disregarded. Negotiations evidence involving a proposed term for a contract is not always conclusive evidence of the contract's intent if the proposed term is rejected. Sometimes such proposals are merely designated to clarify existing provisions of a contract.

There is one case that the arbitrator used to make his decision to uphold inclusivity, ignoring the negotiated terms.

How about the Federal District Court Review, post 1997, that did the same thing?

So now I'm wrong, the Arbitrator is wrong and the District Court Review is wrong.

I'm not out for right or wrong, UPS did what they did. And this arbitrator agreed that UPS is correct in determining that the Cardinal Sins are inclusive.

I'm not going to try and tell an arbitrator he was wrong, but that doesn't seem right to me.

Apparently, the Federal District Court Review agreed with the Arbitrator, or the Arbitrator agreed with the Federal District Court, which ever way, so maybe he is not the one that is wrong.

And finally, where the case in this summary differs from our case "The grievant was warned that if he left, he would be considered abandoning his job."

I agree that he did not get a warning, but your whole premise was that he had planned on coming back to work the following day, so he did not abandon his job. Or that it was not a Cardinal Sin.

This decision did not even consider whether the grievant had intended to come back to work the next day or not. He left and was terminated.

That is why I agreed with everyone that he would be back. He was not told to stay, specifically, and then left. But he did leave without being told that he could leave. Gray area, yes. Within UPS' rights, yes, within the gray area.

I used this example for 2 reasons.

1. It shows that "some" Arbitrators and Federal Court Reviews consider the CBA Cardinal Sins inclusive, not exclusive. Meaning that you can be immediately terminated for offenses outside of the list of Cardinal Sins.

2. It shows that an employee can be terminated for job abandonment.

I also acknowledge that some Arbitrators agree on exclusivity.

You willing to gamble on which Arbitrator you may end up getting?

This is why you demand a steward's presence when there is any mention of discipline.

I strongly agree.

Keep reading these decisions. What I learned from all of these was well worth my time reading them.