NLRB Charges by APWA against UPS Going to Hearing

[nospinzone]

In response to Brett and Cole's discussion in another thread......

I questioned the officers via email regarding the NLRB charges you guys mentioned.

Ten NLRB charges have been filed against the Massman Drive, Nashville, Tn facility for violations stemming from comments made by UPS manager "little man" Robert ******* earlier this year. In his comments, which were made in multiple meetings to multiple shifts, "little man" unwisely and inaccurately instructed his employees on their rights pertaining to union activities. He also made derogatory and inaccurate comments about the APWA. The APWA gave UPS several opportunities to correct this violation before filing charges, but UPS failed to acquiesce. Therefore a total of 10 charges were found to have merit by the Tenn NLRB office and these charges will go to hearing. The date will most likely be determined Friday, 5/18. NLRB will encourage UPS and APWA to arrive at a consensual agreement by self-arbitration. If an agreeement is not arrived at, a formal hearing will take place and if the charges are upheld, a minimum fine of $10,000 per charge could be assessed as well as public apologies/restoration by UPS.

For further details, contact the Nashville NLRB office:

Nashville (Resident Office, 26)
810 Broadway - Suite 302
Nashville, TN 37203-3859
Resident Officer: Joseph H. Artiles
Hours of Operation: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm (CST)

TEL: 615-736-5921
FAX: 615-736-7761

 

[Cole]

Thanks nospin!

Seems the company didn't want anyone to interrupt their hand holding affair with the Teamsters! "Little man might be getting as big foot!

 

[JonFrum]

Pay very close attention to how this case unfolds. Not so much to the specifics, but to the *process*. Because filing charges of Unfair Labor Practices with the NLRB is how your rights are protected in the days after the NLRB certifies the APWA as your exclusive bargaining agent, and simultaneously decertifies the Teamsters and their collective bargaining agreement with UPS. Note how many injustices do not rise to the level of being chargeable. How you have to sometimes let offenses accmulate. How debatable everything is even if you originally thought it was clearcut. How *long* the process takes from initial offense to final remedy. How expensive in money and manpower. How things are in limbo in the meantime, while the negotiating clock is ticking off the weeks and months. How the NLRB is reluctant to intervene. How there's no guarantee your side will win completely, or that you will win at all, even if you are convinced you *should* win. Further, since all sides can file charges, expect your side to be the target of charges, including trumped-up charges, from the other sides (UPS, the Teamsters, TDU, the APWA, other unions on the ballot (if any), and various rank and file members acting on their own, or on behalf of their organization.) I predict lots of drama.

 

[krash]

Seems the company didn't want anyone to interrupt their hand holding affair with the Teamsters!

 

[badpas]

Pay very close attention to how this case unfolds. Not so much to the specifics, but to the *process*. Because filing charges of Unfair Labor Practices with the NLRB is how your rights are protected in the days after the NLRB certifies the APWA as your exclusive bargaining agent, and simultaneously decertifies the Teamsters and their collective bargaining agreement with UPS. Note how many injustices do not rise to the level of being chargeable. How you have to sometimes let offenses accmulate. How debatable everything is even if you originally thought it was clearcut. How *long* the process takes from initial offense to final remedy. How expensive in money and manpower. How things are in limbo in the meantime, while the negotiating clock is ticking off the weeks and months. How the NLRB is reluctant to intervene. How there's no guarantee your side will win completely, or that you will win at all, even if you are convinced you *should* win. Further, since all sides can file charges, expect your side to be the target of charges, including trumped-up charges, from the other sides (UPS, the Teamsters, TDU, the APWA, other unions on the ballot (if any), and various rank and file members acting on their own, or on behalf of their organization.) I predict lots of drama.

Jon, you are so stuck on keeping everything the same your missing that things have to change. Do you agree that things can't stay the way they are now? I'm sure most do. This is just one option. Yes things may seem in diseray but what do you think will happen if the pension fund goes belly up? There will be a mutiny for sure. Its good to have questions and arguments and it is also good to get them out in the open and discuss them but lets not get paranoid just yet. The fact is if the teamsters don't do something right or at the very least try, its going to be just the way you explained except changing trustees and all the rest of the should of or would ofs won't do any good. You can't please everyone this is obvious but you can make things better for most. The rest will always have something bad to say. As far as all the problems mounting before anything is done unfortuantly may happen but the difference between us and the pilots are sheer numbers, and the fact that UPS would not risk another strike now especially being so close to the last one. If the apwa were to become, I'm sure the company would test us but not to the extent of the pilots. Because lets not forget there were only 400 pilots when that happened and ups was still fairly new. And even if it did take 4 years to ratify a new contract it was still for the better for in a year the pilots trippled in numbers. So you can say what you want about this comparison but I'v talked to the pres. Bob Miller and it has been much better ever since. Oh yeah, he also said their reason for voting out the teamsters was basically representation and not even close to the problems we're having. But don't take my word give him a call he'll tell you everything you'll want to know.

 

[Cole]

Brother Krash,

Let's not pretend that collusion with the company doesn't happen, and alot more than we would think. Please don't misinterpret my tone as hostile, because it's not, but there are alot of cases around here of the Union selling us out, and making backroom deals. Heck our ba doesn't even hear your grievances in front of you and your steward, but meets behind closed doors, which only leaves the members to speculate.

I have been on him for quite a while now about that, and even called him out for it in front of the brethren at a monthly meeting, and as usual he says he has no problem with that, but has yet to do it. I for one am sick of having to fight those on our payroll. There are procedures and we will meet with the Pres of our local to discuss them, but we have been down that road throughout the yrs quite a bit.

Their mentality is going to change one way or the other.

I assure you I have as much concern as you regarding the actual decert, and being without a union for a shortwhile, even with status quo, because the Company I would guess would drag their feet in negotiations, and possibily trump up charges on those of us who have been involved.

 

[krash]

Brother Cole,
I believe what you are saying. Have not experienced it myself, but you have always been straight up with me.I guess it's just the way you said "The Teamsters" as if we all our making googly eyes with UPS Is googly a word?

 

[JonFrum]

Jon, you are so stuck on keeping everything the same your missing that things have to change. . .

I want lots of changes. But so many of the changes the APWA cheerleaders advocate in their posts violate one law or another. I just act as a fact checker and cite the law, rule, regulation or whatever that stands in their way. Should I keep silent and let reality smack them in the face down the road?

 

[krash]

I want lots of changes. But so many of the changes the APWA cheerleaders advocate in their posts violate one law or another. I just act as a fact checker and cite the law, rule, regulation or whatever that stands in their way. Should I keep silent and let reality smack them in the face down the road?

jon,
Thats what they want, but all information needs to be giving. Not just there's. Post on brother

 

[Cole]

Nah Krash,

I was only referring to the BA's and officers that make a mockery of the title "Union"!

Jon if it's a "fact" like brother Krash said, post on, same with Nospin.

 

[sawdusttv]

Brother Krash,

Let's not pretend that collusion with the company doesn't happen, and alot more than we would think. Please don't misinterpret my tone as hostile, because it's not, but there are alot of cases around here of the Union selling us out, and making backroom deals. Heck our ba doesn't even hear your grievances in front of you and your steward, but meets behind closed doors, which only leaves the members to speculate.

I have been on him for quite a while now about that, and even called him out for it in front of the brethren at a monthly meeting, and as usual he says he has no problem with that, but has yet to do it. I for one am sick of having to fight those on our payroll. There are procedures and we will meet with the Pres of our local to discuss them, but we have been down that road throughout the yrs quite a bit.

Their mentality is going to change one way or the other.

I assure you I have as much concern as you regarding the actual decert, and being without a union for a shortwhile, even with status quo, because the Company I would guess would drag their feet in negotiations, and possibily trump up charges on those of us who have been involved.

Cole,
I know that this has been explained many times, but for you here we go.

There will be no decert vote!
We are not asking to decert and become non-union.
We are only voting to change which union represents us. We are still unionized just under a different union. In order for this to happen, we vote the teamsters out and the APWA in at the same time. We don't go one minute without being unionized.
Once the APWA is voted in, per NLRB rules we would follow the existing contract while the new union negotiates a new contract. We would never be one minute without a contract or union representation.

 

[RockyRogue]

There will be no decert vote!
We are not asking to decert and become non-union.
We are only voting to change which union represents us. We are still unionized just under a different union. In order for this to happen, we vote the teamsters out and the APWA in at the same time. We don't go one minute without being unionized.
Once the APWA is voted in, per NLRB rules we would follow the existing contract while the new union negotiates a new contract. We would never be one minute without a contract or union representation.

Interesting qualification, Sawdust. I've highlighted the sentences that were of most concern or interest to me. I have a question, though: what if the vote comes up as decertifying the Teamsters and not certifying APWA?? Any labor lawyer for the other side worth his salt is going to argue (and probably win) insertion of two questions: one, asking to vote out the Teamsters, another asking to vote in APWA. If APWA is voted in, are they gonna bring in their BA's, etc? If not, the Teamsters are certainly gonna turn their backs on us in a hurry, including the grievance procedure. I'm not categorically pro-APWA but I don't like the Teamsters very much, either. I'm on the fence with good reason. Anybody that can provide reasonable, well-thought out answers to my concerns, please feel free to tell me. I'm always willing to listen. And Sawdust, I keep forgetting to tell you welcome back! I didn't see any of your posts for too long! I was starting to think someone had run ya off!!! -Rocky

 

[sawdusttv]

Interesting qualification, Sawdust. I've highlighted the sentences that were of most concern or interest to me. I have a question, though: what if the vote comes up as decertifying the Teamsters and not certifying APWA?? Any labor lawyer for the other side worth his salt is going to argue (and probably win) insertion of two questions: one, asking to vote out the Teamsters, another asking to vote in APWA. If APWA is voted in, are they gonna bring in their BA's, etc? If not, the Teamsters are certainly gonna turn their backs on us in a hurry, including the grievance procedure. I'm not categorically pro-APWA but I don't like the Teamsters very much, either. I'm on the fence with good reason. Anybody that can provide reasonable, well-thought out answers to my concerns, please feel free to tell me. I'm always willing to listen. And Sawdust, I keep forgetting to tell you welcome back! I didn't see any of your posts for too long! I was starting to think someone had run ya off!!! -Rocky

Thanks Rocky, But I'm too hard headed to be run off, just on vacation and the fishing was great off the NC coast!

Back too business,

Rocky,
The rules for this type of (for lack of better words) changing of the guard is spelled out in detail on the NLRB website, although it does require quit a bit of reading, but if you want it from the horses mouth, that would be the place for you find the answers without being accussed of hear-say. But I assure you that this is not the NLRB's first time handling this very situation and they have all bases covered, no matter how many lawyers the teamster have. The NLRB is a government agency that will not but up with any lawyer games. There procedures are cut and dry, and not open for debate.

 

[705red]

Thanks Rocky, But I'm too hard headed to be run off, just on vacation and the fishing was great off the NC coast!

Back too business,

Rocky,
The rules for this type of (for lack of better words) changing of the guard is spelled out in detail on the NLRB website, although it does require quit a bit of reading, but if you want it from the horses mouth, that would be the place for you find the answers without being accussed of hear-say. But I assure you that this is not the NLRB's first time handling this very situation and they have all bases covered, no matter how many lawyers the teamster have. The NLRB is a government agency that will not but up with any lawyer games. There procedures are cut and dry, and not open for debate.

Really so under no conditions we could be without a contract?

 

[badpas]

I want lots of changes. But so many of the changes the APWA cheerleaders advocate in their posts violate one law or another. I just act as a fact checker and cite the law, rule, regulation or whatever that stands in their way. Should I keep silent and let reality smack them in the face down the road?

Jon, your posts are quite informative but after reading most of your posts what rules or laws are they violating. The pension sueing issue aside, I've not seen any laws being broken yet. I can't say I know it all but I follow this pretty close so please list them for everyone. And Jon don't take it so peronally because the reality may smack us all in the face if something isn't done soon. So please post away.

 

[JonFrum]

Many legal obstacles stand in their way. . . Bump. . . Ouch!!!

Badpas,

I didn't say they were *breaking* any laws, I said, "so many of the changes the APWA cheerleaders advocate in their posts violate one law or another. I just act as a fact checker and cite the law, rule, regulation or whatever that stands in their way. Should I keep silent and let reality smack them in the face down the road?"

It's their proposals for the future that will not work because they will bump into one legal obstacle or another. For example, their suggestions that UPS doesn't owe Withdrawal Liability directly to Central States, or that the APWA can take control of the UPS money already in Central States, or that the Trustees of other funds can transfer money to Central States to help bail it out, or that the IBT directly controls the pension fund, or that Teamster officials draw multiple pensions out of Central States, would all be prohibited by ERISA if actually attempted.

Many of their charges of theft and mismanagement are deliberately vague. To charge a crime, and to recover funds, you must make the charges specific, and actually file them, not just endlessly repeat them for effect. But even if they could formulate a specific charge, it probably would be dismissed because it would run afoul of the statute of limitations. The NLRB, as well, has a six month statute of limitations. If you have a complaint, you have to file it or forget it. It's put up or shut up. But the APWA cheerleaders keep milking their vague complaints post after post. They can't recover millions, (or billions,) lost in the stock market unless they actually file a charge and do so in a timely maner. And stock market losses may not be criminal anyway. I'm not denying all the charges, just pointing out that they probably won't hold up in court.

I could go on citing other examples, but the point is: Anyone wanting to make things better must first get all the facts of the existing situation, and then learn all about ERISA, NLRA, PBGC, DOL, the new Pension Protection Act, the UPS contract, pension trust agreements, and so on. Whatever course you propose must flow in a channel bounded by all these laws and some others as well. Good intentions are not enough. The proposed solutions must also be within the Law (civil and criminal.)

 

[badpas]

Re: Many legal obstacles stand in their way. . . Bump. . . Ouch!!!

Badpas,

I didn't say they were *breaking* any laws, I said, "so many of the changes the APWA cheerleaders advocate in their posts violate one law or another. I just act as a fact checker and cite the law, rule, regulation or whatever that stands in their way. Should I keep silent and let reality smack them in the face down the road?"

It's their proposals for the future that will not work because they will bump into one legal obstacle or another. For example, their suggestions that UPS doesn't owe Withdrawal Liability directly to Central States, or that the APWA can take control of the UPS money already in Central States, or that the Trustees of other funds can transfer money to Central States to help bail it out, or that the IBT directly controls the pension fund, or that Teamster officials draw multiple pensions out of Central States, would all be prohibited by ERISA if actually attempted.

Now Jon, what happened to fact checker. That sounded alot like your opinion more than anything you claim to do, because none of it is true.[meaning all what the cheerleaders say] There maybe alot of talk and misinfo flying around but I do agree and say it again NONE OF THAT IS POSSIBLE. However the part that I may differ with is the part where the cs trustees MAY have mismanaged because there are laws in place that state there are averages made in a fiscal year and I believe that is made by the S&P 500, this means if the averages aren't met there are grounds for compensation. Leaving the filing aside, with a fund and the amount of people that are affected that 6 month window i'm sure will be passed. As far as ups not oweing a withdrawl fee, I'm sure they mean ups buying out the pension wouldn't you agree? For the teamster officials getting multiple pensions that would refer to one as a ups employee and one as a teamster employee. If thats not true please explain because that came straight from our ba's mouth. This actually makes sense as long as the ups pension is x amount of years and the teamster pension is in addition to that.

Many of their charges of theft and mismanagement are deliberately vague. To charge a crime, and to recover funds, you must make the charges specific, and actually file them, not just endlessly repeat them for effect. But even if they could formulate a specific charge, it probably would be dismissed because it would run afoul of the statute of limitations. The NLRB, as well, has a six month statute of limitations. If you have a complaint, you have to file it or forget it. It's put up or shut up. But the APWA cheerleaders keep milking their vague complaints post after post. They can't recover millions, (or billions,) lost in the stock market unless they actually file a charge and do so in a timely maner. And stock market losses may not be criminal anyway. I'm not denying all the charges, just pointing out that they probably won't hold up in court.

My only comment to that is that things need to change and that the ideas from the apwa are pretty good ideas as far as changing the way the pension is paying to its beneficiaries. I know we seem to get stuck on the pension but unfortunatly there are alot of people counting on this to survive once they retire. So getting what we've earned becomes a much bigger topic than just assigning blame and running with it. It would be nice to see something positive in that direction wouldn't you say.

I could go on citing other examples, but the point is: Anyone wanting to make things better must first get all the facts of the existing situation, and then learn all about ERISA, NLRA, PBGC, DOL, the new Pension Protection Act, the UPS contract, pension trust agreements, and so on. Whatever course you propose must flow in a channel bounded by all these laws and some others as well. Good intentions are not enough. The proposed solutions must also be within the Law (civil and criminal.)

I couldn't agree more and I think this whole thing will make people get involved or at least more informed. But I wouldn't just say everything the apwa says will run into law after law and even if this happens at least there trying. Agreeing with what they say or not their proposals are for the better even if it sounds alittle vague. Competiton is a good thing and hopefully when this is all over we can all say it was worth it. I know one thing for sure and that is with all the efforts being put into posting and spending all this time discussing shows that there are alot of people who still care and want whats best for everyone. If we're staying at ups for the long haul we might as well make the most of it.

 

[Cole]

Re: Many legal obstacles stand in their way. . . Bump. . . Ouch!!!

To my understanding all 10 charges against UPS were won, and the company has until Friday to resolve all issues satisfactorily to the APWA.

It is also my understanding that the physical threats are starting, so please let it be known if it is happening in your area.

 

[Channahon]

Re: Many legal obstacles stand in their way. . . Bump. . . Ouch!!!

It is also my understanding that the physical threats are starting, so please let it be known if it is happening in your area

Can you expand on this comment? Physical threats by who? I'm having visions of violence in the workplace - not a good thing for anyone.

 

[Cole]

Re: Many legal obstacles stand in their way. . . Bump. . . Ouch!!!

Not in the workplace...Just threats against people trying to organize the APWA from what I hear, and it's to be expected.