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
Local 243
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="BigUnionGuy" data-source="post: 3931578" data-attributes="member: 4992"><p>I skimmed back over the case, to refresh my memory.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Rob A was denied reinstatement and awarded partial backpay. The administrative</p><p></p><p>law judge refused to reinstate him because of his public FaceBook posts about his</p><p></p><p>management. But, agreed there was a concerted effort by UPS to try and</p><p></p><p>discharge him because of his "vote no" activity in violation of the NLRA.... hence,</p><p></p><p>the reason for partial backpay.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I will defer to the NLRB appeal before I pass judgement.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Rob A didn't file any charges with the Union or the IRB.</p><p></p><p>So at this point, why would the IBT be involved ?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Down the road, if the NLRB makes a ruling on the appeals that implicates BRF</p><p></p><p>is complicit with UPS in the discharge of RA.... then, that would be an issue</p><p></p><p>for the IBT to look at.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You want me to prematurely convict BRF, based on what RA thinks....</p><p></p><p>when the majority of the blame lies with RA for his own situation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>-Bug-</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As an aside.... Rob A posted a copy of both the company and Union's panel</p><p></p><p>briefs on the "vote no" FaceBook page. (which I downloaded)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Reading the Union's brief, his Local went to bat for him.</p><p></p><p>The company brief.... was heavily redacted. I guess he didn't want everyone</p><p></p><p>to see the entire company case against him.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BigUnionGuy, post: 3931578, member: 4992"] I skimmed back over the case, to refresh my memory. Rob A was denied reinstatement and awarded partial backpay. The administrative law judge refused to reinstate him because of his public FaceBook posts about his management. But, agreed there was a concerted effort by UPS to try and discharge him because of his "vote no" activity in violation of the NLRA.... hence, the reason for partial backpay. I will defer to the NLRB appeal before I pass judgement. Rob A didn't file any charges with the Union or the IRB. So at this point, why would the IBT be involved ? Down the road, if the NLRB makes a ruling on the appeals that implicates BRF is complicit with UPS in the discharge of RA.... then, that would be an issue for the IBT to look at. You want me to prematurely convict BRF, based on what RA thinks.... when the majority of the blame lies with RA for his own situation. -Bug- As an aside.... Rob A posted a copy of both the company and Union's panel briefs on the "vote no" FaceBook page. (which I downloaded) Reading the Union's brief, his Local went to bat for him. The company brief.... was heavily redacted. I guess he didn't want everyone to see the entire company case against him. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Local 243
Top