Full-time driving

[UnconTROLLed]

Question:

If you are a full-time employee who has driven in the past while full-time, and you bid into a full-time package car driving job, do you have to do another 6 month break-in?

My local is selling me out on this idea. It is typical of them and they are teaming with UPS on issues that are not cohesive. This is just one example of it.

UPS is trying to hold me to a 22.3 rate and work another 6 month break-in despite having done 1.5 years driving and been DOT phys/driving tested. Also, I am not in progression.

Any ideas?

 

[some1else]

//b. No employee shall be required to complete a full-time progression more than one time even if he or she transfers between full-time jobs except as set forth in this paragraph. The sole exception is when an employee is awarded a package car or feeder driver job and has not previously held a full-time job which includes driving duties. In such event, the employee will have a break-in rate equal to the
employee’s current wage rate until six (6) months from the date the employee entered the job. The employee will then go to the prevailing top rate.//
looks like they are trying to use this language which doesnt apply to you as you already have driving duties... should be top rate upon transfer

 

[hondo]

To me, it sure looks like you are entitled to top rate, according to the language above (Article 41, section 2b). I could hazard a guess as to why the 6 mo. break-in rate language is there, but that's a moot point. You were driving, so it doesn't apply.
Go up the chain of command in your local: business rep., business agt., chief BA, ... up to sending a letter to the principal officer/executive board. Document your communications. If you don't get satisfaction, contact the NLRB.

Boston ( 1)
10 Causeway Street - 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02222-1072 Get Directions
Regional Director: Rosemary Pye
Hours of Operation: 8:30 am - 5:00 pm (EST)

TEL: 617-565-6700
FAX: 617-565-6725

Speak/meet with an Information Officer there about filing unfair labor practice charges against employer and union.
Your state's labor dept. may also be of assistance.

I imagine we're talking about $5K-7K, easily. More with penalties, by the time you're made whole.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

To me, it sure looks like you are entitled to top rate, according to the language above (Article 41, section 2b). I could hazard a guess as to why the 6 mo. break-in rate language is there, but that's a moot point. You were driving, so it doesn't apply.
Go up the chain of command in your local: business rep., business agt., chief BA, ... up to sending a letter to the principal officer/executive board. Document your communications. If you don't get satisfaction, contact the NLRB.

Boston ( 1)
10 Causeway Street - 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02222-1072 Get Directions
Regional Director: Rosemary Pye
Hours of Operation: 8:30 am - 5:00 pm (EST)

TEL: 617-565-6700
FAX: 617-565-6725

Speak/meet with an Information Officer there about filing unfair labor practice charges against employer and union.
Your state's labor dept. may also be of assistance.

I imagine we're talking about $5K-7K, easily. More with penalties, by the time you're made whole.

thanks for the information. i will begin doing this once I make 30 days on-road ( to avoid the unfair DQ possibility which will probably exist)

This decision comes straight from our local president, but it looks like I will have to step on more toes to really get what is right, right.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Talked with HR, they said my previous road test and any information about driving is not on file. Only DOT phys. Also they said that package car driving duties only count as driving duties. Interesting interpetation of the contract, true or not.

 

[some1else]

im 99% driving duties refer to any work outside the building; airs, shuttles, or delivery. in contrast to "inside" work

 

[JonFrum]

Sleeve,

Are you saying your previous "driving duties" were air driving, not package car driving?

And are you saying the unfavorable contract interpretation came directly from Sean O'Brien?

If so, you are probably aware Sean O'Brien was on both the National and the New England Supplemental Negotiating Committees.

When contract language is in dispute, arbitrators consult the two negotiating sides to see what their notes say, and what other versions of the language were proposed and rejected. The arbitrator then makes a decision based on what the two negotiating sides thought they were agreeing to. What they intended to agree to.

Try to get a clarification from Sean O'Brien, or any one else in a position to know, as to what the negotiating parties intended when they discussed "driving duties."

[Personally, I agree with your interpretation, because that's what the language says, and that's what was ratified by the members. But an arbitrator may see it differently. Just giving you a heads-up.]

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Sleeve,

Are you saying your previous "driving duties" were air driving, not package car driving?

And are you saying the unfavorable contract interpretation came directly from Sean O'Brien?

If so, you are probably aware Sean O'Brien was on both the National and the New England Supplemental Negotiating Committees.

When contract language is in dispute, arbitrators consult the two negotiating sides to see what their notes say, and what other versions of the language were proposed and rejected. The arbitrator then makes a decision based on what the two negotiating sides thought they were agreeing to. What they intended to agree to.

Try to get a clarification from Sean O'Brien, or any one else in a position to know, as to what the negotiating parties intended when they discussed "driving duties."

[Personally, I agree with your interpretation, because that's what the language says, and that's what was ratified by the members. But an arbitrator may see it differently. Just giving you a heads-up.]

Thanks Jon,

I guess I am on my own in this one. My own fault for bidding out. It is the same old song and dance which is dissapointing.

 

[JonFrum]

The justification arbitrators use when they interpret language in a narrow way that is unfavorable to the grievant is: "You can't get in arbitration what you didn't get in negotiations."

Which sounds reasonable, except that negotiations are conducted in secret, because that's the way UPS and the Teamsters always want them. All the members know is the language changes we get in the mail with our ballots.

If you loose this case, I suppose it will also mean that any 22.3 person who shifts package cars or trailers on property, as I do, would have to go through the six month break-in, as well.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

The justification arbitrators use when they interpret language in a narrow way that is unfavorable to the grievant is: "You can't get in arbitration what you didn't get in negotiations."

Which sounds reasonable, except that negotiations are conducted in secret, because that's the way UPS and the Teamsters always want them. All the members know is the language changes we get in the mail with our ballots.

If you loose this case, I suppose it will also mean that any 22.3 person who shifts package cars or trailers on property, as I do, would have to go through the six month break-in, as well.

I bid air driver in 2007 but the company never moved me into my bid (now changed in the Dec 2007 supplement). So I get penalized for that?

I could see why someone who shifts on property would not get credit for break-in. IIRC, you do not need a DOT phys or driving test for shifting on property.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

//b. No employee shall be required to complete a full-time progression more than one time even if he or she transfers between full-time jobs except as set forth in this paragraph. The sole exception is when an employee is awarded a package car or feeder driver job and has not previously held a full-time job which includes driving duties. In such event, the employee will have a break-in rate equal to the
employee’s current wage rate until six (6) months from the date the employee entered the job. The employee will then go to the prevailing top rate.//


Anyone have a DOT card? Look at what it says.

Here is mine

I certifiy that I have examined ******** in accordance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 391.41-391.49) and with knowledge of the DRIVING DUTIES, I find this person is qualified and if appliciable, only when:

LOL - yet the language , my local says, does not qualify me to a 6 month break in. Now that I look at the DOT card, it is clear cut that I have to go above my local, again.

 

[Billy]

I have heard that going 22.3 form driving you can't just go back. That you had to start over. This is probably what they're talking about here. Wish I had the whole scoop, but I don't. G' Luck

 

[Babagounj]

good thing this will never apply to me

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Sleeve,

Are you saying your previous "driving duties" were air driving, not package car driving?

And are you saying the unfavorable contract interpretation came directly from Sean O'Brien?

If so, you are probably aware Sean O'Brien was on both the National and the New England Supplemental Negotiating Committees.

When contract language is in dispute, arbitrators consult the two negotiating sides to see what their notes say, and what other versions of the language were proposed and rejected. The arbitrator then makes a decision based on what the two negotiating sides thought they were agreeing to. What they intended to agree to.

Try to get a clarification from Sean O'Brien, or any one else in a position to know, as to what the negotiating parties intended when they discussed "driving duties."

[Personally, I agree with your interpretation, because that's what the language says, and that's what was ratified by the members. But an arbitrator may see it differently. Just giving you a heads-up.]

PS....I meant to tell you, Sean O'Brien is also the one who was pushing the idea that anyone in Local 25 who bid an air driver job , would have to complete another seperate 2 year progression even if they were top -rate 22.3 inside, package, anything. Which has been proven to be a completely false interpetation.

So either (1) Local 25 is lying on behalf of UPS and saving them $$ or (2) strongly mistaken -on their own interpetations. I believe the former, in that case and this one.

Also, wasn't this language in the national agreement well before Sean O'Brien came to negotiating it? Since '92 or '97?

 

[UnconTROLLed]

good thing this will never apply to me

You are closer to retiring than running a route blind.

 

[Babagounj]

You are closer to retiring than running a route blind.

I suggest that next bid you come back and take my current slot. Think of all the area knowledge that you will gain.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

I suggest that next bid you come back and take my current slot. Think of all the area knowledge that you will gain.

80 mile commute for 17.40/hr.
Maybe there will be day that split pay nonsense will be removed from the contract.

 

[JonFrum]

PS....I meant to tell you, Sean O'Brien is also the one who was pushing the idea that anyone in Local 25 who bid an air driver job , would have to complete another seperate 2 year progression even if they were top -rate 22.3 inside, package, anything. Which has been proven to be a completely false interpetation.

So either (1) Local 25 is lying on behalf of UPS and saving them $$ or (2) strongly mistaken -on their own interpetations. I believe the former, in that case and this one.

Also, wasn't this language in the national agreement well before Sean O'Brien came to negotiating it? Since '92 or '97?

UPS was unresonably requiring full-time 22.3 people to go through a new progression when they switched jobs, so the Article 41, Section 2(b) language was added in the last contract (2002) to clarify the matter!!!

George Cashman and Ritchie Reardon were Local 25's negotiators on the National Committee in 2002; George Cashman and Sean O'Brien on the New England Supplement.

Strange as it may seem, since George Cashman is banned, the IRB will bring you up on charges if you, or any of us, have any contact with him whatsoever!!!

 

[UnconTROLLed]

UPS was unresonably requiring full-time 22.3 people to go through a new progression when they switched jobs, so the Article 41, Section 2(b) language was added in the last contract (2002) to clarify the matter!!!

George Cashman and Ritchie Reardon were Local 25's negotiators on the National Committee in 2002; George Cashman and Sean O'Brien on the New England Supplement.

Strange as it may seem, since George Cashman is banned, the IRB will bring you up on charges if you, or any of us, have any contact with him whatsoever!!!

That does not clear anything up, because Sean was the one pushing me into another progression (agreeing with UPS) if I bid air driver despite being out of progression. Thanks for clarifying the new language, I had thought it was from previous contracts before that.

 

[Babagounj]

Strange as it may seem, since George Cashman is banned, the IRB will bring you up on charges if you, or any of us, have any contact with him whatsoever!!!

Does that include anyone who happens to deliver to his home ?
I did once , before he was banned.