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
PVDs and the contract
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="Thebrownblob" data-source="post: 5141069" data-attributes="member: 60485"><p>Article 32 of the NMA: Subcontracting:</p><p></p><p>For these reasons I find that the Union did not prove by preponderant evidence that the Company violated Article 32 of the NMA by employing PVDs in Local 804’s jurisdiction during peak season in 2019.</p><p></p><p>Article 26, Section (a) of the NMA: Prohibition on Forcing Package Car Drivers to Use their Personal Vehicles:</p><p></p><p>The bargaining history evidence does not suffice to override what I find to be the straightforward language of Article 26, Section 1(a), broadly prohibiting the Company from forcing any package car drivers to use their personal vehicle to deliver packages. Accordingly, I find that the Union demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that by requiring PVDs, during the 2019 peak season and within Local 804’s jurisdiction to use their personal vehicles, the Company violated Article 26, Section 1</p><p></p><p>AWARD</p><p> For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Union proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Company violated Article 26, Section 1(a) of the NMA by requiring the PVDs it employed in Local 804’s jurisdiction during the 2019 peak season to use their personal vehicles to deliver packages. I further find that the Union has not proved by preponderant evidence that the Company violated Article 32 of the NMA or Articles 2, 13, 25, and 36 of the Local 804 Supplement. Accordingly, the grievance is granted in part and denied in part.</p><p>Pursuant to the parties joint request, this decision does not address the issue of remedy. Rather, the matter is remanded to the parties to negotiate a resolution. Jurisdiction is retained for a reasonable period of time to address the issue of remedy should the parties fail to reach a resolution.</p><p></p><p>I don’t think you fully understand what the ruling means 804 lost just as many of their complaints as they won. Many of their complaints were based just on their own supplements. The one they did win pertains to the fact of the company “forcing” drivers to use their own vehicles. Because some of the literature the company was using required PVDs in 2019 to use their vehicles So now the company says PVDs are drivers and they do not force them to use their own vehicles. It’s BS of course, so the case will continue.</p><p></p><p>The hoopla around this arbitration case was overblown. Was it a win? Sure just not what they said or most people thought.</p><p></p><p>Lots of grievances filed in my local this year based on extra work and loss of hours. There still will be other panel decisions and probably more arbitrations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thebrownblob, post: 5141069, member: 60485"] Article 32 of the NMA: Subcontracting: For these reasons I find that the Union did not prove by preponderant evidence that the Company violated Article 32 of the NMA by employing PVDs in Local 804’s jurisdiction during peak season in 2019. Article 26, Section (a) of the NMA: Prohibition on Forcing Package Car Drivers to Use their Personal Vehicles: The bargaining history evidence does not suffice to override what I find to be the straightforward language of Article 26, Section 1(a), broadly prohibiting the Company from forcing any package car drivers to use their personal vehicle to deliver packages. Accordingly, I find that the Union demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that by requiring PVDs, during the 2019 peak season and within Local 804’s jurisdiction to use their personal vehicles, the Company violated Article 26, Section 1 AWARD For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Union proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Company violated Article 26, Section 1(a) of the NMA by requiring the PVDs it employed in Local 804’s jurisdiction during the 2019 peak season to use their personal vehicles to deliver packages. I further find that the Union has not proved by preponderant evidence that the Company violated Article 32 of the NMA or Articles 2, 13, 25, and 36 of the Local 804 Supplement. Accordingly, the grievance is granted in part and denied in part. Pursuant to the parties joint request, this decision does not address the issue of remedy. Rather, the matter is remanded to the parties to negotiate a resolution. Jurisdiction is retained for a reasonable period of time to address the issue of remedy should the parties fail to reach a resolution. I don’t think you fully understand what the ruling means 804 lost just as many of their complaints as they won. Many of their complaints were based just on their own supplements. The one they did win pertains to the fact of the company “forcing” drivers to use their own vehicles. Because some of the literature the company was using required PVDs in 2019 to use their vehicles So now the company says PVDs are drivers and they do not force them to use their own vehicles. It’s BS of course, so the case will continue. The hoopla around this arbitration case was overblown. Was it a win? Sure just not what they said or most people thought. Lots of grievances filed in my local this year based on extra work and loss of hours. There still will be other panel decisions and probably more arbitrations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
PVDs and the contract
Top