Ridiculous Grievance Panel

[tieguy]

I downloaded the Grievance Panel decisions off of makeupsdeliver.com and it is very clear how the company has little regard or respect for the contract. The long list of deadlocked cases speaks for itself but one caught my eye......


"Chair McCabe called Case N-193-09: Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJ
On behalf of all affected
employees, Union alleges that
the Company violated Article 37
and Article 18. The Company’s
decision to keep Manager **** in its Package operations
whereby he has constant contact
with bargaining unit employees,
has placed the safety and well-
being of all employees in
serious jeopardy. *** has
demonstrated a history of
inappropriate and violent
behavior which culminated in
him smacking two drivers in the
back of their head.
DECISION: Based on the facts presented, case is DEADLOCKED. "

Deadlocked? You've got to be kidding me!

a deadlock is three company against and three union for. I would think there were no witnesses or the manager would be on the street?

 

[tieguy]

Chair Dempsey called Case N-232-09: Local 769 v. UPS, North Miami, FL​

On behalf of

Melissa

Tiefenbach, Union alleges that

the Company violated Article
17. On July 17, 2008 the IBT
and UPS reached a settlement on
the appropriate pay rate for
counter clerks in the South
Florida District. The affected
employees did not receive the
agreed to monies until
October 7, 2008. The grievant
is requesting penalties for the
late grievance payment as
stipulated in Article 17 of the
current CBA.
DECISION: Based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the
matter and nature of the settlement, THE GRIEVANCE IN THIS​

INSTANT CASE IS DENIED.​

This is a joke! The contract is clear! UPS has ten days to pay you your grievance money or penalty starts ticking at half your guarantee per week.
ARTICLE 17
Errors of less than thirty dollars ($30.00) for full-time employees or fifteen dollars ($15.00) for part-time
employees and overages will be corrected in the following weekly paycheck.
Any grievance settlement not paid within ten (10) working days of the settlement shall entitle the
grievant (s) to a penalty payment as outlined above. The ten (10) working day period shall begin
to run when the Labor Department representative agrees to the settlement, or is notified by the
Union or management team of the settlement. The Employer shall pay a maximum of one penalty
payment for a multi-grievant grievance, which shall be subject to the additional penalties set forth
above for untimely payment, until corrected.​

If the case were that simple I'm sure you guys would have won.

 

[705red]

If the case were that simple I'm sure you guys would have won.

Locally? You may be right! Nationally? As you can see if you read the results of the cases, its clear that they would rather get along, then do whats right!

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

The over 9.5 grievances are what bugs me. I wish every extended center and every center in all of the hubs would see all of their drivers get on the over 9.5 lists. The panels would be flooded with grievances.

 

[trickpony1]

To answer your question, these cases only go to arbitration if the Teamsters decide to take it there. Due to the possible expense of arbitration if you lose, only the 'strong' cases would go.

It's my understanding that if a case goes to arbitration then attorneys will get involved. The union pays for the grievant's attorney. If your local is about to go bankrupt or if the possble award meets or is less than the expenses involved then it's easier for the BA to whisper in the ear(s) of the union side at deadlock and say, "........go ahead and rule "no contract violation".
I've seen this happen. The drivers job wasn't at stake but the 10 weeks of pay he lost was.

Arbitration is a little more serious than the hand shaking, back slapping and bottom petting that goes on at panel and deadlock but it is still subject to influence.

 

[trickpony1]

a deadlock is three company against and three union for.

Really?
then explain how a deadlock that I was involved with had one company person and one union person.

 

[JonFrum]

One Union guy and his Management drinkin' buddy overslept after a night of serious bar hoppin' and missed your hearing.

The other Union guy and his Management buddy had to appear at their araignment. Something about an altercation the previous night in the strip club parking lot.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

If management would just stop violating the contract then none of this BS would be happening. Yes, I know there are also bogus grievances too but if we stick to the clear violations then we all know how serious this is. Don't sign the contract if you don't intend to honor it!

 

[Braveheart]

I downloaded the Grievance Panel decisions off of makeupsdeliver.com and it is very clear how the company has little regard or respect for the contract. The long list of deadlocked cases speaks for itself but one caught my eye......


"Chair McCabe called Case N-193-09: Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJ
On behalf of all affected
employees, Union alleges that
the Company violated Article 37
and Article 18. The Company’s
decision to keep Manager **** in its Package operations
whereby he has constant contact
with bargaining unit employees,
has placed the safety and well-
being of all employees in
serious jeopardy. *** has
demonstrated a history of
inappropriate and violent
behavior which culminated in
him smacking two drivers in the
back of their head.
DECISION: Based on the facts presented, case is DEADLOCKED. "

Deadlocked? You've got to be kidding me!

How can it be deadlocked? Why can't the union get this one through?

There were many that were "no violation" that means our side sided with management!!!! They were clear violations too.

Wonders who's side "our" guys are on.

If we can't enforce the contract then what is the point of having one?

 

[trickpony1]

How can it be deadlocked? Why can't the union get this one through?

There were many that were "no violation" that means our side sided with management!!!! They were clear violations too.

Wonders who's side "our" guys are on.

If we can't enforce the contract then what is the point of having one?

I wonder that too as I continue to piss away $18 a week for nothing.

 

[Catatonic]

I wonder that too as I continue to piss away $18 a week for nothing.

Expecting a perfect solution and effect is one way to look at it. Consider the alternative.

 

[tieguy]

Locally? You may be right! Nationally? As you can see if you read the results of the cases, its clear that they would rather get along, then do whats right!

Did the arbitrator list the reasons for his/her decision?

 

[tieguy]

Really?
then explain how a deadlock that I was involved with had one company person and one union person.

I guess they couldn't find four more guys to sit in on your case.

Or they ran out of kleenex.

 

[705red]

Did the arbitrator list the reasons for his/her decision?

Tie what are you talking about? The cases we are discusiing were at a national panel. No arbitrator!

 

[tieguy]

Tie what are you talking about? The cases we are discusiing were at a national panel. No arbitrator!

Sounds like a plan to fail.

 

[JonFrum]

The latest chapter in this sorry story . . .

From TDU: "The decisions from the October meeting of the National Grievance panel in San Diego are now available online.

This was the final national panel for 2009 and the results for UPS Teamsters on the critical issues of excessive overtime and full-time combo job elimination were grim.

Seventeen locals brought cases to the panel charging UPS with eliminating full-time combo jobs and refusing to put those jobs up for bid in violation of Article 22.3 of the contract. Every single one of the cases was postponed.

Sixty-five 9.5 violation cases were brought to the panel— totaling 25 percent of the 36 page docket. Outside of Oakland Local 70, the panel ruled in favor of working Teamsters on a 9.5 issue in just one case.

In 16 cases coming out of Local 70— the company was ordered to comply with 9.5 language. These cases involved instances where UPS was settling 9.5 violations but never fixing the underlying problem of the affected drivers’ load."

http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/news.php

National Grievance Panel Decisions, October 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/minutes-national-october-2009-2.pdf

National Grievance Panel Docket, October 2009:
http://tdu.org/files/National October agenda 2009.pdf

National Grievance Panel Decisions, June 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/minutes_national_june_2009.pdf

National Grievance Panel Docket, June 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/natlgrievancedocket-june2009.pdf

Joint National Air Comittee Docket, June 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/natlgrievancedocket-air-june2009.pdf

National Grievance Panel Decisions, February 2009:
http://tdu.org/files/ngcminutes-feb09.pdf

National Grievance Panel Docket, February 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/nationalfeb2009.pdf

 

[UnconTROLLed]

The latest chapter in this sorry story . . .


National Grievance Panel Decisions, October 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/minutes-national-october-2009-2.pdf

National Grievance Panel Docket, October 2009:
http://tdu.org/files/National October agenda 2009.pdf

National Grievance Panel Decisions, June 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/minutes_national_june_2009.pdf

National Grievance Panel Docket, June 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/natlgrievancedocket-june2009.pdf

Joint National Air Comittee Docket, June 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/natlgrievancedocket-air-june2009.pdf

National Grievance Panel Decisions, February 2009:
http://tdu.org/files/ngcminutes-feb09.pdf

National Grievance Panel Docket, February 2009:
http://www.makeupsdeliver.org/e107_files/downloads/nationalfeb2009.pdf

Local 25 reps and stewards claimed they grieved all of the 22.3 job losses. What exactly happened to those grievances? Another of many lies if you ask me.

 

[Dragon]

So it seems only Local 70 had a problem with 9.5's and all other center's were right on the money on how they dispatched???

 

[brett636]

delete me...

 

[brett636]

Seventeen locals brought cases to the panel charging UPS with eliminating full-time combo jobs and refusing to put those jobs up for bid in violation of Article 22.3 of the contract. Every single one of the cases was postponed.

Can I call it or what? I predicted that none of the grievances regarding 22.3s would get resolved. I fear the clock is ticking for the remaining 22.3 combo jobs, as the company hates their very existence, and the union leadership will gladly turn a blind eye to anything the company chooses to do with them.