The fired member wasn't the only member.
Local 243
- Thread starter Brownpants80
- Start date
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
So let's see, one member who did run against her had the Local conspire with management to have him fired, while their supplement was voted down and subsequently imposed by the Hoffa....yet we can't figure out why nobody is interested in running for Teamster office in this area???
You're probably right, it's because Miss Betty is doing such a fine job.
Nothing new here, a few large locals have always changed leadership occasionally. L804 is a prime example. A misfit group replaced the reform group in office. Now the misfits are out and a combo group of past reformers and a few new inexperienced actors are in. In any case, there's going to be a rocky road ahead and guess who suffers?
Whether there was any misconduct on BRF's part, RA was responsible for his behavior. You continue to ignore that pertinent fact. No one else got him fired. His behavior is the reason he's not working at UPS.
Addressed in a prior post. Were charges, by any member of her local, brought forth? Until that happens, you're just farting in the wind.
So much for courageous members, or maybe L538 members are satisfied with the status quo.
Either way, how can one expect new leaders to negotiate successful contracts if they can't muster up the nerve to run in a local election?
Glad we're finally back to L243. So did the Teamsters fire this challenger or UPS? Why don't you enlighten us on the details of this transgression rather than rehash the RA saga, which has no connection to L243.
What'dyabringmetoday???
Well-Known Member
Big Union Man probably sees things....differently. Lol.
Swing and a miss.
You can do better than that. Where did I allege anyone was doing a fine job?
Situations come and go but the process is the remedy.
Ignore that and all there is left is off base posting on internet forums.
Which, ironically, can be perilous.
Watch what you wish for. Over many years I have seen groups take over Locals and fail miserably because they had no idea about rules, basic labor law, multiple industries, etc. A group of only UPS people come in thinking they are going to beat up the company and all you get is increased terminations, lost panel cases by made motions or out manuevered at panel, etc. The other industries get mad because no one else knows their language and decisions so now they are the under served members. Rarely have I seen a smooth transition from old guard to a complete new guard without many casualties. That group is usually voted out quickly and a whole new group comes in to start another cycle.
browned out
Well-Known Member
Whether there was any misconduct on BRF's part, RA was responsible for his behavior. You continue to ignore that pertinent fact. No one else got him fired. His behavior is the reason he's not working at UPS.
Let's not be naive. RA's behavior was minor methods violations. He was targeted by the Union and UPS then terminated. A Runners methods violations are more serious and more dangerous but UPS looks the other way....constantly.
Addressed in a prior post. Were charges, by any member of her local, brought forth? Until that happens, you're just farting in the wind.
Charges could not be filed as RA was no longer a Teamster
Glad we're finally back to L243. So did the Teamsters fire this challenger or UPS? Why don't you enlighten us on the details of this transgression rather than rehash the RA saga, which has no connection to L243.
The Teamster Reps in 243 and more importantly, the Teamsters on the panel ignored UPS dishonesty re methods and procedures.
Let's not be naive. RA's behavior was minor methods violations. He was targeted by the Union and UPS then terminated. A Runners methods violations are more serious and more dangerous but UPS looks the other way....constantly.
Addressed in a prior post. Were charges, by any member of her local, brought forth? Until that happens, you're just farting in the wind.
Charges could not be filed as RA was no longer a Teamster
Glad we're finally back to L243. So did the Teamsters fire this challenger or UPS? Why don't you enlighten us on the details of this transgression rather than rehash the RA saga, which has no connection to L243.
The Teamster Reps in 243 and more importantly, the Teamsters on the panel ignored UPS dishonesty re methods and procedures.
The independent NLRB judge found enough deficiencies in RA's behavior to not return him to work at UPS. Who's being naive?
Any member of the local aware of improprieties can file internal union charges. RA could have alerted the IRB.
Were you at the panel hearing?
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
....due to Facebook posts he made after he exhausted all steps of the grievance procedure and involuntarily separated from the Company and Union....which is crap.
What's the "statute of limitations" for that to have happened....and was it limited to "any member of the Local"?
....or was the IBT also eligible to file charges for obvious reproach?
Let me guess, it's an autonomous issue???
Is it too late?
I doubt it, but the summary judgement (not sure if that's the right terminology) gives us a pretty good perspective of those proceedings?
In the end that judgement found the discharge improper and the social media aspect of the decision the reason he wasn't returned to work....which is ridiculous.
Thankfully RA had the fortitude to appeal, potentially protecting us all from a very dangerous precedence.
Anybody with a stitch of objectivity can see that the fix was in.
Was he squeaky clean, doubtful....but the luxury of hindsight here is at least 20/20.
RA was the unwitting victim of a choreographed witchhunt, orchestrated by the very entity that was duty bound to protect him, and carried out by the Company that wants to fire anyone who doesnt toe the line.
It reads like a made for TV movie.
Perhaps I'll call Netflix...???
Last edited:
Hmmm...so you now allege the "local" instructed RA to commit continual methods violations?
And you're defending a guy that wanted to run the show but wasn't clever enough to keep his nose clean and not load the gun used against him?
The only accurate assertion is he was "unwitting".
Since he had the fortitude to appeal, I imagine he had the curiosity to read his locals bylaws, wherein lies that answer.
Among my many objective shortcomings, I've failed to memorize every locals bylaws.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
The above question was directed to an allegation made by the poster I was answering re: a L243 issue, not on the RA saga.
I believe the decision on the RA case (if it is still under appeal) will be overturned.
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
As minor as they may seem, RA wasn't smart enough to realize the company was
building a case against him for "overall job performance".
The panel he went before.... agreed.
After the Western Pennsylvania grievance panel conducted a hearing on January 14, 2015, concerning Atkinson’s grievances of his October 28 discharge, the grievance panel upheld UPS’s decision to discharge Atkinson. The grievance panel’s decision stated (in its entirety) as follows:
"Based on the facts presented and the grievant’s own testimony the committee finds no violations of any contract articles therefore the grievances (#22310 and #22311) are denied."
If he was current on his dues, he could have.
Or, his alternate Steward could have.... the one that he opposed being appointed
to the position. Then they became friends.
The whole case reads like a soap opera.
I would give him a pass on that, for being frustrated.
But, the judge didn't see it that way.
And why would a 27 year employee (Steward) think it was appropriate to rant on social
media about it ? That was his death knell.
As with most threads and topics.... they never stay on point.
I really want to hear from @browned out about the Local 243 case.
-Bug-
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
"Swing and a miss".
"Continual methods violations" are documented on every employee annually, where no driver ever achieves a perfect "Space and Visibility" ride.
Methods are the Company's only contractually viable production/harassment tool, and there are simply too many methods for any driver to ever have a perfect day.
So when they get a driver like RA in their sights.....and the Local President is in bed with the Company on the witch hunt....???
All I'm saying, at the very least, is the principle officer of his Local (Miss Betty) conspired with the Company to have him fired.
Quote my post where I ever endorsed him for Local office?
Again, a "swing and a miss".
My assertion here was that when a case like this reaches the level it did at the NLRB, it could/should reach the level where the IBT is monitoring the case and levying their own penalties accordingly.
After all the "N" in NLRB stands for National?
"Foul ball" by me then, but my assertion stands.
It is still under appeal, with the last activity occurring almost 2 years ago.
For some reason it seems to be on mothballs, but I agree, the previous decision should be overturned.
Last edited:
I'm on the edge of my seat...
browned out
Well-Known Member
Teamsters Local 243
Why is another vote on THE SAME SUPPLEMENT being forced before the NLRB charges come to a conclusion?
Now we are stuck on voting what appears to be the exact same supplement we voted down.
243's failure to address the members concerns in drafting the 1st 243 Rider was and is a Failure to Represent Members During Contract Negotiations.
243 is attempting to save face by filing the NLRB charges against UPS.
Their utter ineptness at writing the language in the Metro Detroit Rider and their considerable input on the Central Region Supplement was unacceptable.
The 243 charges should at least result in clarification of language.
It is too bad they did not answer the members questions regarding major changes in working conditions, pay and terms of employment.
If this supplement passes or is forced thru without major clarification in language; charges from the members against the union will be forthcoming. Unless ALL RPCDs are guaranteed 40 hours per week. (other issues needed to be addressed as well)
This is garbage; The current 243 leadership has betrayed the members for the last time.
Out they go; All of them. Vote these pieces of garbage out. They have put a large portion of package car drivers in a position to be laid off on Mondays and Tuesdays with no recourse.
Since the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, labor organizations have been restricted in ways similar to employers. This amendment to the National Labor Relations Act makes it illegal for a union to:
Why is another vote on THE SAME SUPPLEMENT being forced before the NLRB charges come to a conclusion?
Now we are stuck on voting what appears to be the exact same supplement we voted down.
243's failure to address the members concerns in drafting the 1st 243 Rider was and is a Failure to Represent Members During Contract Negotiations.
243 is attempting to save face by filing the NLRB charges against UPS.
Their utter ineptness at writing the language in the Metro Detroit Rider and their considerable input on the Central Region Supplement was unacceptable.
The 243 charges should at least result in clarification of language.
It is too bad they did not answer the members questions regarding major changes in working conditions, pay and terms of employment.
If this supplement passes or is forced thru without major clarification in language; charges from the members against the union will be forthcoming. Unless ALL RPCDs are guaranteed 40 hours per week. (other issues needed to be addressed as well)
This is garbage; The current 243 leadership has betrayed the members for the last time.
Out they go; All of them. Vote these pieces of garbage out. They have put a large portion of package car drivers in a position to be laid off on Mondays and Tuesdays with no recourse.
Since the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, labor organizations have been restricted in ways similar to employers. This amendment to the National Labor Relations Act makes it illegal for a union to:
- Coerce people to become union members;
- Use threats, intimidation or violence;
- Force an employer to punish a worker because he/she doesn't get along with the union;
- Charge excessive union dues; or
- Refuse to bargain in good faith with the employer.
Last edited:
BigUnionGuy
Got the T-Shirt
Another TDU "hit piece" against the IBT.
By someone.... that has never worked a day.... at UPS.
browned out
Well-Known Member
lol on the not working at UPS comment. You should be ashamed of your conduct. Come down and actually do some work at UPS for 30 years. Let's see how you hold up. If you ever worked at UPS; It is definitely not the same job it was back then.
Another side-step of facts by an "elected" teamster official who may or may not engage in the same tactics as Betty Rose Fischer. One thing for sure is that you knew about her behavior and did nothing about it. You are culpable.
Back off topic.
It appears the Teamsters have many despicable ways of attempting to deter members from running for office. Get the opponent fired, buy them out, What else has occurred to keep this Hoffa/Hall garbage machine rolling over hard working Teamsters?
Is BUG really Charles Henry? Was Charles Henry TDU or Hoffa loyal? IT DOES NOT MATTER. IT IS REPROACH AS WAS BRF'S CONDUCT.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Henry Unfairly Attempted To Influence the Local 299 Election
It appears that Henry brought reproach upon the IBT when he attempted to influence the
Local 299 officer election by offering Garrett, a candidate for Recording Secretary on an
opposing slate, a $2,000 bribe to withdraw from the Local election. Indeed, Henry attempted to
violate the rights of Local 299 members to nominate and vote for the candidate of their choice by offering an undisclosed bribe to a rival candidate to drop out of the race.
On balance, we have decided to suspend Charles Henry from union employment and office for a period of six months because, as charged, he offered to pay Helen Garrett $2,000 on condition that she withdraw her candidacy for union office. With respect to the charge of providing false testimony under oath to the joint council, we have evaluated the seriousness of Brother Henry's misconduct in light of the mitigating factors described above. At the same time, because the commission of this offense severely limits the ability of the union to regulate itself, we consider it a particularly serious matter at this time for this union. On balance, we will impose on Charles Henry a suspension of one year from employment and office, without pay but without loss of membership, on the second charge. These penalties are to be served consecutively. The Charging Party and Charged Party have the right to appeal this decision as provided in Article XIX, Section 2 of the IBT Constitution.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") provided the Chief Investigator with a copy
of a transcript of the September 28, 2000 consensually taped conversation between Garrett and
Henry. (Ex. 4) The transcript confirmed Garrett's testimony at the Joint Council hearing that
Henry offered her the cash on condition that she withdraw from the race. (Ex. 4 at 7-9) The
relevant transcript excerpt stated:
Garrett: Okay, lemme try tah understand this Charles. You sayin in order for me tah get that, I have tah drop off before four today right? Henry: Yep, that's right, that's to, uh, well an' it's, well, we give it to ya tah help you, help you pay your bills if you drop off.
* * * Garrett: ...well, how does this work? Henry: If you wanna drop out Helen, we'll help you pay your bills to date with the two, with the two thousand dollars.
Garrett: So in other words you would have tah know that I really did drop out before I get the, uh, the money right? Henry: Tah help you with the, tah help you (unintelligible).. Garrett: Right with the, the hospital bill. Henry: Yep. (Ex. 4 at 7-9)
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Henry Unfairly Attempted To Influence the Local 299 Election
It appears that Henry brought reproach upon the IBT when he attempted to influence the
Local 299 officer election by offering Garrett, a candidate for Recording Secretary on an
opposing slate, a $2,000 bribe to withdraw from the Local election. Indeed, Henry attempted to
violate the rights of Local 299 members to nominate and vote for the candidate of their choice by offering an undisclosed bribe to a rival candidate to drop out of the race.6
This union needs to get back on track.
We are busting our butts in a job where many end up needing knee replacement, hip replacement, back surgery, tennis and golf elbow, carpel tunnel, etc .
We deserve a Union that Fulfills it's DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION DURING CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS.
Instead: We have a union that condones retaliation against the members. A union that secures concessions contract after contract.
Last edited:
browned out
Well-Known Member
Why is 243 sending out the unchanged supplement for a vote before the NLRB rules on ULP charges?
This make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
This make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
browned out
Well-Known Member
You bet. That case is absolutely related. It has a 243 current connection; any how;
243 should be stating that: after the NLRB rules; then and only then will we vote on the supplement.
Just continuing to establish that the Teamsters have a history of political opponent suppression and retaliation. 243 has been a party to that on numerous occasions. A 243 eb member was involved in that slap on the wrist decision regarding the bribery attempt. It is like comparing apples to apples. Some of the same players involved. It was 18 years ago and the behavior is still prevalent. The fact that the Hoffa/Hall teamsters refuse to address this behavior is unacceptable.
243 is incompetent. It was essential that language be included that allowed any and all RPCDs the right to 40 hours before any such 40 hour guarantee be made to a not-yet existent second tier position. 40 Hours absolutely 100% guaranteed for 22.4s. No such guarantee for RPCDs. The language was purposely left out. We can not get clarification on what would happen if a RPCD is laid off Monday and Tuesday; Can they bump a 22.4 on a Saturday and a Sunday? NO ANSWER Can a RPCD request 4 ten hour days in order to reach their 40 hours? NO ANSWER
The intent of the 22.4 was to reduce unwanted OT. Not to create a loophole that could hold some full time drivers to only 24 hours worked in a week.
The NORCAL negotiating team were not total and utterly useless pieces of garbage. 243 is exactly that.
The NORCAL fulfilled its duty of fair representation during contract negotiations.
243 continues their long history of representing UPS. 243 has failed miserably in fulfilling their duty of fair representation during contract negotiations.
243 is their own worst enemy in any possible upcoming NLRB charges by the members against the Union. 243's documented gross negligence has already cemented a winning case for the members.
Last edited:
Lot of threats of "possible" action, but you've yet to file anything. If you're so cocksure of your position get off BC, find an attorney for advice and write up your complaint.
Who knows...with the nearly neutered, and woefully understaffed NLRB, you may get a hearing/decision before you retire.
But here's a freebie...any attorney worth a nickel will tell you L243 fulfilled it's required duty by scheduling and meeting with UPS to renegotiate the expired agreement.
The IBT and L243 have competent, knowledgeable attorneys for guidance. You don't.
Similar threads
