the problem may be there is no legal precedent for the objection. No courtroom process where the objection can interrupt the proceeding no point of order and the steward still works for the person he is objecting to. So in reality the witness part of the proceeding is your primary role. [/QUOTE]
Tie, the posts by Sober and Red do have some valid points. And Jon has some as well
If I, as the steward, take issue with something that is either being done or said, the meeting can be terminated, especially if the rights of the other employee are being violated (as in the case of the fishing trip.)That does not mean we just jump up and leave. But it does mean that the answers and communication from both I and the employee have stopped, until such a time as the wrongful treatment is stopped.
I know I work for UPS. And as such, regardless of the person that I am dealing with, I will approach the meeting with the respect that is due the office, both of the manager, and of the shop steward. That respect will be there until you cease to return that respect to me. Then I will still treat you with respect, because I intend to take the high road.
Did not always happen, but I tried. I did walk away from a conversation once where I said under my breath that the center manager was full of $uyt. He asked what I said, and since I pride myself in being truthful on all things, I told him "I said you are full of $uyt, sir". He did try to make something of that, but since it was said under my breath, and not in public or for the public to hear, it was dropped. But I did hate that he was able to push me to that point where I was lowered to his level.
Tie, there is ample precedence both legal and otherwise for me to tell you the meeting is over until such a time that I have had ample time to conduct my own investigation, or to collect information, or that I need to pull the employee out to converse privately, either with the company, or with the employee. In this case, at the beginning of the fishing trip, I would have done both. And there is legal precedence to do that.
Jon
fundamental American principle that to be guilty of a crime, one must have intent to commit the crime
If a person does not know that what he is doing is against the law, does intent have a bearing?
I understand what you were attempting to say to Tie.
Regardless of the standing living in a dream has at the center, I do not believe he had knowledge of the problem until management made him aware of it. And since he did not try to cover up any issues, the center team really does not have a case to fire him for any reason.
They do have every reason to keep him off the road until they get outside confirmation from the DOT that his license is now valid. At that time, they need to put him back on road. And my gut feeling is that is what will happen.
The only thing really wrong with this whole scene (living in a dream's drama excluded) is that the company really had no business fishing for information (if that is actually what happened). Everything else that has been done is pretty much been by the book.
d
