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 Discussions
On Topic: UPS attempting to terminate newer driver after filing grievances
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="35years" data-source="post: 2424616" data-attributes="member: 60822"><p>Not sure what part of my post you wanted in a link, so here is a link to the other pertinent language;</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22932" target="_blank">04/06/1998 - Interpretation of 29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i): Toilet Facilities</a></p><p>"The quoted provision of the standard is followed immediately by a paragraph stating that the toilet provision does not apply to mobile work crews or to locations that are normally unattended, "provided the employees working at these locations have transportation immediately available to nearby toilet facilities which meet the other requirements" of the standard (29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(ii) (emphasis supplied). Thus employees who are members of mobile crews, or who work at normally unattended locations must be able to leave their work location "immediately" for a "nearby" toilet facility. This provision was obviously intended to provide these employees with protection equivalent to that the general provision provides to to employees at fixed worksites. Read together, the two provisions make clear that all employees must have prompt access to toilet facilities. "</p><p></p><p>I would certainly not hold out for back pay since the 3rd District court ruling that was used to get the bathroom back pay settlement you linked to specifically excludes extending break, which is your situation. You will be very lucky to get the job back without backpay.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="35years, post: 2424616, member: 60822"] Not sure what part of my post you wanted in a link, so here is a link to the other pertinent language; [URL='https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22932']04/06/1998 - Interpretation of 29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i): Toilet Facilities[/URL] "The quoted provision of the standard is followed immediately by a paragraph stating that the toilet provision does not apply to mobile work crews or to locations that are normally unattended, "provided the employees working at these locations have transportation immediately available to nearby toilet facilities which meet the other requirements" of the standard (29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(ii) (emphasis supplied). Thus employees who are members of mobile crews, or who work at normally unattended locations must be able to leave their work location "immediately" for a "nearby" toilet facility. This provision was obviously intended to provide these employees with protection equivalent to that the general provision provides to to employees at fixed worksites. Read together, the two provisions make clear that all employees must have prompt access to toilet facilities. " I would certainly not hold out for back pay since the 3rd District court ruling that was used to get the bathroom back pay settlement you linked to specifically excludes extending break, which is your situation. You will be very lucky to get the job back without backpay. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
On Topic: UPS attempting to terminate newer driver after filing grievances
Top