gandydancer
Well-Known Member
From the "Yes or NO on NEW CONTRACT" thread:
They haven't tried that here, at least not with me, but I've been wondering if that particular can of worms would eventually hit the fan. Management has on a couple separate occasions tried cutting me out NEAR the end of Night Hub, say 3am -- I work Twilight and Night, loading on the latter -- but the issue was then whether they could cut me out and have my work finished by a less senior employee who had ALSO made his guarantee, and I prevailed without going to panel, arguing that the essence of seniority is that the company cannot choose the less expensive employee, and that there was no contractual language making my being on overtime an exception to this. But apparently things have gone differently in Baraveheart's division, and I could see that I'd have to had to make a more difficult argument if they'd cut me out at 2am, when I'd made eight hours and the Night Hub parttimers hadn't made their 3.5. I'd have to argue the fungibility of the work, and that any hours they got past their guarantee should have gone to the more senior employee, and...well, it would have been less open and shut.
Anyway, if the new contract passes my cost to the company on overtime will be four times or so that of a new hire doing the same work, so you don't have to be able to read tea leaves to know UPS is going to be more agressive about this.
So, does anybody (Braveheart? You're a steward, right?) know of any grievance decisions pertinent to this issue?
Secondly, there's language in the new contract about UPS being credited for train-to-feeder volume transfers with a reduction in their obligation to create 22.3 jobs. Since they have no obligation to create any new 22.3's it seems they will be able to delete existing 22.3's, and there is nothing I see to say those jobs must be vacant ones. So what happens if they create a new feeder job in Pennsylvania and line out mine in California? Am I laid off? (Well, I'm a '98 -- MAYBE they have to start with the least senior 22.3 nationally -- but apply the question to him).
They haven't tried that here, at least not with me, but I've been wondering if that particular can of worms would eventually hit the fan. Management has on a couple separate occasions tried cutting me out NEAR the end of Night Hub, say 3am -- I work Twilight and Night, loading on the latter -- but the issue was then whether they could cut me out and have my work finished by a less senior employee who had ALSO made his guarantee, and I prevailed without going to panel, arguing that the essence of seniority is that the company cannot choose the less expensive employee, and that there was no contractual language making my being on overtime an exception to this. But apparently things have gone differently in Baraveheart's division, and I could see that I'd have to had to make a more difficult argument if they'd cut me out at 2am, when I'd made eight hours and the Night Hub parttimers hadn't made their 3.5. I'd have to argue the fungibility of the work, and that any hours they got past their guarantee should have gone to the more senior employee, and...well, it would have been less open and shut.
Anyway, if the new contract passes my cost to the company on overtime will be four times or so that of a new hire doing the same work, so you don't have to be able to read tea leaves to know UPS is going to be more agressive about this.
So, does anybody (Braveheart? You're a steward, right?) know of any grievance decisions pertinent to this issue?
Secondly, there's language in the new contract about UPS being credited for train-to-feeder volume transfers with a reduction in their obligation to create 22.3 jobs. Since they have no obligation to create any new 22.3's it seems they will be able to delete existing 22.3's, and there is nothing I see to say those jobs must be vacant ones. So what happens if they create a new feeder job in Pennsylvania and line out mine in California? Am I laid off? (Well, I'm a '98 -- MAYBE they have to start with the least senior 22.3 nationally -- but apply the question to him).
