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
Fired for job abandonment
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="Mugarolla" data-source="post: 3232341" data-attributes="member: 8481"><p>But he also mentioned a Federal District Court Review that has survived post 1997 as being inclusive.</p><p></p><p>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. <strong>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.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How about the Federal District Court Review, post 1997, that did the same thing?</p><p></p><p>So now I'm wrong, the Arbitrator is wrong and the District Court Review is wrong.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I used this example for 2 reasons.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>2. It shows that an employee can be terminated for job abandonment.</p><p></p><p>I also acknowledge that some Arbitrators agree on exclusivity.</p><p></p><p>You willing to gamble on which Arbitrator you may end up getting?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I strongly agree.</p><p></p><p>Keep reading these decisions. What I learned from all of these was well worth my time reading them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mugarolla, post: 3232341, member: 8481"] 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. [B]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.[/B] 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. 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. 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? I strongly agree. Keep reading these decisions. What I learned from all of these was well worth my time reading them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Fired for job abandonment
Top