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: 499876" data-attributes="member: 16651"><p>helen;</p><p> </p><p>Yep, if that's all that's involved (i.e. - being disciplined), PER WEINGARTEN (and, again, I'm not extending that to local contracts, which may entail other obligations) that's exactly what I'm saying.</p><p> </p><p>Think of Weingarten, in terms of the courtroom (although it's an imperfect analogy) as a form of "pleading the 5th", in that it allows you to have representation if questioning might mean that you could incriminate yourself. (I said "imperfect" because Weingarten, unlike the 5th Amend., doesn't relieve one of the right to answer questions that might "incriminate" an individual, but does allow him/her "representation" prior to doing so). It doesn't grant a worker the right to representation when the activity involved is anything but QUESTIONING in which being questioned could have a reasonable (and that's a loaded word!) presumption that answering such questions could lead to being disciplined.</p><p> </p><p>The active word is "questioning". Simply communicating to an employee (or asking him questions that would NOT lead to HE/SHE being disciplined) does not carry with it the right of representation....even if that communication involves discipline itself.</p><p> </p><p>Think of it in terms receiving a warning letter in the mail....do most workers demand "representation" before opening it? And what good would it do them if they did?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PobreCarlos, post: 499876, member: 16651"] helen; Yep, if that's all that's involved (i.e. - being disciplined), PER WEINGARTEN (and, again, I'm not extending that to local contracts, which may entail other obligations) that's exactly what I'm saying. Think of Weingarten, in terms of the courtroom (although it's an imperfect analogy) as a form of "pleading the 5th", in that it allows you to have representation if questioning might mean that you could incriminate yourself. (I said "imperfect" because Weingarten, unlike the 5th Amend., doesn't relieve one of the right to answer questions that might "incriminate" an individual, but does allow him/her "representation" prior to doing so). It doesn't grant a worker the right to representation when the activity involved is anything but QUESTIONING in which being questioned could have a reasonable (and that's a loaded word!) presumption that answering such questions could lead to being disciplined. The active word is "questioning". Simply communicating to an employee (or asking him questions that would NOT lead to HE/SHE being disciplined) does not carry with it the right of representation....even if that communication involves discipline itself. Think of it in terms receiving a warning letter in the mail....do most workers demand "representation" before opening it? And what good would it do them if they did? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Pending Arbitration case-Really Insubordination?
Top