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 878 Members - Southern Supplement
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="TIMN" data-source="post: 5671427" data-attributes="member: 106937"><p>Thank you for your reply. In this instance the proposal was a Company proposal not a Union proposal. You are correct often times Union’s propose a setting arbitrator in “white paper” negotiations and employers balk at the cost. In this case the cost of the setting arbitrator will be divided among all of the local unions and district labor functions who participate in the SRAPGC dramatically reducing the cost to any particular local or district labor function. Same process as T-Force. As for the positive for the Union being reducing the amount of time a member waits for a decision you are correct for the 5 or less people forced to traditional arbitration currently. The negative for the Union will be the dramatically increased number of semi-innocent members who will lose their jobs or be forced into taking a lesser settlement due to adopting this language. </p><p></p><p>I would be interested to know of specific cases where an employee was totally in the right and was starved into a lesser deal in the Southern Region. Totally right is a rarity. The overwhelming number of discipline cases in the south are gray at best and those members greatly benefit from not being at the mercy of an arbitrator.</p><p></p><p>With regard to the Company having to up there game when presenting in front of a setting arbitrator that has not been my experience as a former grievance committee chairperson. Both parties put on the same case as they would if the arbitrator weren’t sitting there. The regional grievance committee system does not provide the same formality and time for presentation, examination and cross examination as traditional arbitration.</p><p></p><p>Our contract language regarding “Cardinal Sins” is almost identical nationwide. Nationwide the Company attempts to expand the Cardinal Sins as can be seen by perusing the National Arbitration Database. The South, in large part thanks to Thor Johnson, has been very successful in preventing that attempted expansion in traditional arbitration. Many arbitrators across the country have interpreted the language as not being all inclusive and hold employees may be summarily discharged for “similar” offenses to those Cardinal Infractions specifically listed in our A-52. A setting arbitrator makes it very inexpensive for the Company to attempt to roll back years of success on this front.</p><p></p><p>The proposed Company’s proposed language does nothing to speed up the grievance procedure for 99% of the membership in the South, puts hundreds of members in jeopardy and is not wanted by the overwhelming majority of officers and agents who have more than 10 years experience here. It’s my understanding our committee was basically instructed by the IBT they had to accept the Company proposal. Many are worried about reprisal by the IBT if they speak out. Frankly, I to am concerned but can’t in good conscience not inform our Local 878 members, to the best of my ability, of the possible impacts of this language. </p><p></p><p>By the way, if you are local union officer, agent or IBT official with experience presenting cases before an arbitrator please give me a call. Although I’ve been doing this over 20 years I find I can learn something daily.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TIMN, post: 5671427, member: 106937"] Thank you for your reply. In this instance the proposal was a Company proposal not a Union proposal. You are correct often times Union’s propose a setting arbitrator in “white paper” negotiations and employers balk at the cost. In this case the cost of the setting arbitrator will be divided among all of the local unions and district labor functions who participate in the SRAPGC dramatically reducing the cost to any particular local or district labor function. Same process as T-Force. As for the positive for the Union being reducing the amount of time a member waits for a decision you are correct for the 5 or less people forced to traditional arbitration currently. The negative for the Union will be the dramatically increased number of semi-innocent members who will lose their jobs or be forced into taking a lesser settlement due to adopting this language. I would be interested to know of specific cases where an employee was totally in the right and was starved into a lesser deal in the Southern Region. Totally right is a rarity. The overwhelming number of discipline cases in the south are gray at best and those members greatly benefit from not being at the mercy of an arbitrator. With regard to the Company having to up there game when presenting in front of a setting arbitrator that has not been my experience as a former grievance committee chairperson. Both parties put on the same case as they would if the arbitrator weren’t sitting there. The regional grievance committee system does not provide the same formality and time for presentation, examination and cross examination as traditional arbitration. Our contract language regarding “Cardinal Sins” is almost identical nationwide. Nationwide the Company attempts to expand the Cardinal Sins as can be seen by perusing the National Arbitration Database. The South, in large part thanks to Thor Johnson, has been very successful in preventing that attempted expansion in traditional arbitration. Many arbitrators across the country have interpreted the language as not being all inclusive and hold employees may be summarily discharged for “similar” offenses to those Cardinal Infractions specifically listed in our A-52. A setting arbitrator makes it very inexpensive for the Company to attempt to roll back years of success on this front. The proposed Company’s proposed language does nothing to speed up the grievance procedure for 99% of the membership in the South, puts hundreds of members in jeopardy and is not wanted by the overwhelming majority of officers and agents who have more than 10 years experience here. It’s my understanding our committee was basically instructed by the IBT they had to accept the Company proposal. Many are worried about reprisal by the IBT if they speak out. Frankly, I to am concerned but can’t in good conscience not inform our Local 878 members, to the best of my ability, of the possible impacts of this language. By the way, if you are local union officer, agent or IBT official with experience presenting cases before an arbitrator please give me a call. Although I’ve been doing this over 20 years I find I can learn something daily. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Local 878 Members - Southern Supplement
Top