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
Getting Screwed
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="gandydancer" data-source="post: 494987" data-attributes="member: 9310"><p>Right.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This is a case where you have to apply a little common sense to determine the intent of the parties. Note that the language is carry-over language from '02 when there was no difference between effective date and contract date. Note that the same language was corrected in Article 21, Section 5 (part time) from "effective date" to "August 1, 2008". Note that it doesn't say "full time" progression, and oops WAS "in progression" on the effective date, albeit part-time progression. Note the existance of other bugs in the language, such as the reference to continued application of "2(c)" when the 1992 contract didn't HAVE a 2"(c)". My conclusion is that the intent of the parties was to modify the phrase in 41 in exactly the same way they did modify 21, but they forgot. But even a literal reading doesn't affect oops, just guys hired into driving between Dec '07 and July '08 who weren't in progression Dec '07 (outside hires... guys who'd finished progression?). An argument that it was the intent of the contract to disadvantage such an oddball class would be hard to get past an arb, I would think.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gandydancer, post: 494987, member: 9310"] Right. This is a case where you have to apply a little common sense to determine the intent of the parties. Note that the language is carry-over language from '02 when there was no difference between effective date and contract date. Note that the same language was corrected in Article 21, Section 5 (part time) from "effective date" to "August 1, 2008". Note that it doesn't say "full time" progression, and oops WAS "in progression" on the effective date, albeit part-time progression. Note the existance of other bugs in the language, such as the reference to continued application of "2(c)" when the 1992 contract didn't HAVE a 2"(c)". My conclusion is that the intent of the parties was to modify the phrase in 41 in exactly the same way they did modify 21, but they forgot. But even a literal reading doesn't affect oops, just guys hired into driving between Dec '07 and July '08 who weren't in progression Dec '07 (outside hires... guys who'd finished progression?). An argument that it was the intent of the contract to disadvantage such an oddball class would be hard to get past an arb, I would think. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Getting Screwed
Top