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
Pending Arbitration case-Really Insubordination?
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="PobreCarlos" data-source="post: 499575" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>dillgaf;</p><p> </p><p>Sorry, but I don't believe that simply holding a "conversation" alone is justification under Weingarten; rather it has to do with actual questioning of the employee in order to obtain information from him that could reasonably be assumed to lead to discipline. Nor can I see that the question you postulated (and/or mgmt's answer to it) would have any relevance; the fact is, mgmt is not (by law, at least...local contract obligations may vary) required to allow an employee to have representation present simply because they intend to have a simple conversation with him, nor to administer discipline. And, if truth be told, an employee demanding representation in such a situation (refusing a non-interrogatory meeting, for example), could quickly evolve into a case of insubordination...and suddenly there's an entirely different set of "short hairs" being pulled..</p><p> </p><p>I'm mentioning this, because "Weingartern" seems to be an area of law in which employees entertain a lot of bad assumptions...assumptions which could get them in trouble, if depended upon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 499575, member: 16651"] dillgaf; Sorry, but I don't believe that simply holding a "conversation" alone is justification under Weingarten; rather it has to do with actual questioning of the employee in order to obtain information from him that could reasonably be assumed to lead to discipline. Nor can I see that the question you postulated (and/or mgmt's answer to it) would have any relevance; the fact is, mgmt is not (by law, at least...local contract obligations may vary) required to allow an employee to have representation present simply because they intend to have a simple conversation with him, nor to administer discipline. And, if truth be told, an employee demanding representation in such a situation (refusing a non-interrogatory meeting, for example), could quickly evolve into a case of insubordination...and suddenly there's an entirely different set of "short hairs" being pulled.. I'm mentioning this, because "Weingartern" seems to be an area of law in which employees entertain a lot of bad assumptions...assumptions which could get them in trouble, if depended upon. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Pending Arbitration case-Really Insubordination?
Top