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
Future for Article 22.3 jobs?
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="Dark_Team_135" data-source="post: 439173" data-attributes="member: 17242"><p><strong><span style="color: red">There is no "plain meaning" at all here. That is the problem. If the contract doesn't specifically state that the company can't move these jobs around, then it is up to an arbitrator (if it goes that far) to interpret this language. </span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: red">One thing that will weigh heavily is which party actually selected this language in the first place. When there is contract language that can have more than one meaning, the one that is less favorable to the party that supplied the language is preferred. Even if the language were clear on its face, there can be ambiguity as to the application of it because it might conflict with other parts of the contract. </span></strong></p><p> </p><p><strong><span style="color: red">There are many other principles that an arbitrator can use to settle this of course (See "How Arbitration Works - Elkouri & Elkouri") for a list of them. The point is that this issue isn't specifically addressed, so it is up for debate as to what the parties actually intended when the language about identifying the current combo positions to be protected was drafted. So again, I hope the union at least kept some detailed bargaining notes during negotiation on this subject that were favorable to our position.</span><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/anxious.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":anxious:" title="Anxious :anxious:" data-shortname=":anxious:" /></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dark_Team_135, post: 439173, member: 17242"] [B][COLOR=red]There is no "plain meaning" at all here. That is the problem. If the contract doesn't specifically state that the company can't move these jobs around, then it is up to an arbitrator (if it goes that far) to interpret this language. [/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=red]One thing that will weigh heavily is which party actually selected this language in the first place. When there is contract language that can have more than one meaning, the one that is less favorable to the party that supplied the language is preferred. Even if the language were clear on its face, there can be ambiguity as to the application of it because it might conflict with other parts of the contract. [/COLOR][/B] [B][COLOR=red]There are many other principles that an arbitrator can use to settle this of course (See "How Arbitration Works - Elkouri & Elkouri") for a list of them. The point is that this issue isn't specifically addressed, so it is up for debate as to what the parties actually intended when the language about identifying the current combo positions to be protected was drafted. So again, I hope the union at least kept some detailed bargaining notes during negotiation on this subject that were favorable to our position.[/COLOR]:anxious:[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Future for Article 22.3 jobs?
Top