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="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 3232503" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>Thank you! I thought I was the only one. I've never heard of a TIYS specialist, I can't find any mention of that position anywhere, all specialist positions for UPS that I've seen listed appear to be management.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Somehow I thought you'd fixate on my stated disagreement with the decision and reasons for such. That was simply my opinion, and would not be something I would try to build a case on. I do think it is a dangerous precedent that an arbitrator can just choose to disregard parts of terms that two parties agreed to. I don't know the specifics of the case he used to base his decision on, so I would need to look into that before commenting further, but the Union really needs to spend some resources on getting these kinds of decisions overturned, even if they need to go the legislative route.</p><p></p><p>The truth is that the facts of these two cases are not the same, in the summary the grievant was being told to start his work and was warned that if he didn't it would be considered job abandonment. In our case, the OP was done with his work and told to shut down. The directions were ambiguous, and he should have sought clarification, for which he should be given a warning, not terminated. You are trying to argue that he was leaving because he felt like it, and in defiance of direct orders, which I demonstrated, based on the provided information, was not the case. </p><p></p><p>To say that the company can just pick and choose what they think is a cardinal sin, or misrepresent the facts of the case to make it seem like a cardinal sin was committed is dangerous for the labor force, and should be fought tooth and nail. Under your reasoning if I glanced sideways at a manager, and he felt the look was threatening they would be justified in terminating me for the cardinal sin of workplace violence. </p><p></p><p>But in my hypothetical, and in this case, intent does matter, otherwise there is absolutely nothing stopping the company from interpreting any action of an employee as a cardinal sin, especially if the list is considered to be inclusive. It's reasonable to say that such a situation is a complete abortion of fairness and untenable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 3232503, member: 63706"] Thank you! I thought I was the only one. I've never heard of a TIYS specialist, I can't find any mention of that position anywhere, all specialist positions for UPS that I've seen listed appear to be management. Somehow I thought you'd fixate on my stated disagreement with the decision and reasons for such. That was simply my opinion, and would not be something I would try to build a case on. I do think it is a dangerous precedent that an arbitrator can just choose to disregard parts of terms that two parties agreed to. I don't know the specifics of the case he used to base his decision on, so I would need to look into that before commenting further, but the Union really needs to spend some resources on getting these kinds of decisions overturned, even if they need to go the legislative route. The truth is that the facts of these two cases are not the same, in the summary the grievant was being told to start his work and was warned that if he didn't it would be considered job abandonment. In our case, the OP was done with his work and told to shut down. The directions were ambiguous, and he should have sought clarification, for which he should be given a warning, not terminated. You are trying to argue that he was leaving because he felt like it, and in defiance of direct orders, which I demonstrated, based on the provided information, was not the case. To say that the company can just pick and choose what they think is a cardinal sin, or misrepresent the facts of the case to make it seem like a cardinal sin was committed is dangerous for the labor force, and should be fought tooth and nail. Under your reasoning if I glanced sideways at a manager, and he felt the look was threatening they would be justified in terminating me for the cardinal sin of workplace violence. But in my hypothetical, and in this case, intent does matter, otherwise there is absolutely nothing stopping the company from interpreting any action of an employee as a cardinal sin, especially if the list is considered to be inclusive. It's reasonable to say that such a situation is a complete abortion of fairness and untenable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Fired for job abandonment
Top