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="dilligaf" data-source="post: 500059" data-attributes="member: 11476"><p>Pobre,</p><p> </p><p>I'm kind of understanding where you are going with this. (no I haven't read the case yet but intend to do so).</p><p> </p><p>You are correct in that if I were asked questions, lets say about my rte, I would not normally ask for a steward to be present. Most anything in a day to day situation would apply. But if, during that questioning I reasonably suspected that the conversation could lead to disciplinary action being taken, I have the right to request a steward. Under Weingarten laws they cannot refuse. I have used this before and will use again if I feel it necessary. </p><p> </p><p>My mgt team that I have now is pretty good about talking to my steward before a member is brought in for anything, but that was not always the case. I have had mgrs in the past that could not be trusted under any circumstances. </p><p> </p><p>Using Weingarten has to be done on a case by case basis. All Weingarten does is give a member the right to have a steward present at questioning. It is a form of having a witness on our side to help protect our rights. Theoretically, if the company were handing out discipline for whatever infraction, the questioning has already been done. This is in theory and we all know the company doesn't necessarily follow this. </p><p> </p><p>If I didn't make it clear in my original post, I will try to clear it up now. If I as an employee of UPS were approached by mgt and asked questions that I reasonably felt could lead to discipline I would ask for a steward. If I was denied, or no steward was available, I would stand my ground based on Weingarten and the conversation would be done. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red">1. They <strong><u>cannot</u></strong> refuse you a steward. It is called Wiengarten Rights. It <strong><u>is </u></strong>federal law. If they try this you tell them, "I have asked for a steward. You are refusing me a steward. Your are in violation of federal law. Until I have a steward present this conversation is over." And you <strong><u>walk away</u></strong>. They may try disciplinary action but it will not hold up. </span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red"><span style="color: black">My original post was very straight forward and is accurate, based solely on a request for a steward and being denied that request, during questioning that could reasonably lead to disciplinary action. You have brought semantics into the coversation and muddied the waters. No problem as life is not clear and certainly working for UPS is not clear either. </span></span></p><p><span style="color: red"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dilligaf, post: 500059, member: 11476"] Pobre, I'm kind of understanding where you are going with this. (no I haven't read the case yet but intend to do so). You are correct in that if I were asked questions, lets say about my rte, I would not normally ask for a steward to be present. Most anything in a day to day situation would apply. But if, during that questioning I reasonably suspected that the conversation could lead to disciplinary action being taken, I have the right to request a steward. Under Weingarten laws they cannot refuse. I have used this before and will use again if I feel it necessary. My mgt team that I have now is pretty good about talking to my steward before a member is brought in for anything, but that was not always the case. I have had mgrs in the past that could not be trusted under any circumstances. Using Weingarten has to be done on a case by case basis. All Weingarten does is give a member the right to have a steward present at questioning. It is a form of having a witness on our side to help protect our rights. Theoretically, if the company were handing out discipline for whatever infraction, the questioning has already been done. This is in theory and we all know the company doesn't necessarily follow this. If I didn't make it clear in my original post, I will try to clear it up now. If I as an employee of UPS were approached by mgt and asked questions that I reasonably felt could lead to discipline I would ask for a steward. If I was denied, or no steward was available, I would stand my ground based on Weingarten and the conversation would be done. [COLOR=red]1. They [B][U]cannot[/U][/B] refuse you a steward. It is called Wiengarten Rights. It [B][U]is [/U][/B]federal law. If they try this you tell them, "I have asked for a steward. You are refusing me a steward. Your are in violation of federal law. Until I have a steward present this conversation is over." And you [B][U]walk away[/U][/B]. They may try disciplinary action but it will not hold up. [/COLOR] [COLOR=red][/COLOR] [COLOR=red][COLOR=black]My original post was very straight forward and is accurate, based solely on a request for a steward and being denied that request, during questioning that could reasonably lead to disciplinary action. You have brought semantics into the coversation and muddied the waters. No problem as life is not clear and certainly working for UPS is not clear either. [/COLOR] [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Pending Arbitration case-Really Insubordination?
Top