Warning Letter For Injury

[antispock]

Hello,

A new policy for our district is to slap a warning letter on people who are injuried on the job. Of course, the contract prevents this by saying that people who file an on-the-job injury report cannot be disciplined. However, the company says that by all means they can give warning letters to people who are hurt on the job. Their reason is that the person did something which led to them being hurt. A loader on my belt hurt their back and is going to receive a warning letter because they were out of their powerzone.

This does not seem fair at all because everyday every loader, unloader, sorter, and pickoff is out of their powerzone. How can the company get away with this? It's a total slap in the face to all of us employees.

What can we do?

 

[johnny_b]

Can you find that in the contract? I would very much like to read it and mark it in case I need it.

 

[upslocal480]

Well I guess I'm screwed then. LOL At least I didn't claim for workman's comp.

 

[ukworker]

One of the first things I was told when I came to UPS was the value of training and retraining. If someone injured themselves by not following the training manual they need retraining not warning letters. Refuse the letter ask for retraining and get this request recorded in your employee file. If the job set-up is such that you do go outside of your powerzone, ask for an OJS and get this recorded also.

 

[dannyboy]

I dont think that a warning letter is what they will receive. It is called a letter of concern.

If they indeed give a warning letter, get with the safety committee chairs in your building. The only time warning letters are to be used is when management observes unsafe behaviors (walking on moving belts, driving without seat belts, etc.), not after the fact. It is very counter productive to issue the warning letters to someone that has been injured. If they insist, lemme know, there are some things you can do to rebut the warning letter.

d

 

[antispock]

Dannyboy-

I am sure it's a warning letter. Our manager told us he tried to talk the district manager into giving out a letter of concern, but she said no. The next night my part-time sup called the district manager and she got pissed. Now all the full-time sups have to right a letter of commitment to the district manager telling her how they will abide with her new policy.

The person hurt will get the warning letter. Or the letter of discipline, as they call it. Same difference. What can we do about it? People in my building are as pissed as I have ever seen them. There is talk about a class action suit against the company. I think we could win.

If you look on the Contract it clearly states this:
The Employer agrees to cooperate toward the prompt disposition of employee on -
the-job injury claims. No employee will be disciplined or t hreatened with
discipline as a result of filing an on -the-job injury report. The Employer or
its designee shall not visit an injured worker at his/her home without his/her
consent.

This can be found in Article 14, under Workers Compensation.

 

[badhab1]

Your contract doesn't say that the employee can not be disciplined for having an injury. I am not taking sides on this particular subject but there is nothing to my knowledge in the contract that prevents management from discipling someone for failing to follow safe work methods. Sorry. Solution, work safely and wait out the nine months.

 

[over9five]

But dont you believe this is a counterproductive policy for the company to enforce? A company who claims they want to win lost business back?

As I said in the other group, imagine yourself or one of your buddies getting one of these warning letters. Then, the next day, your manager asks you to turn in some sales leads. Not much chance of you or anyone in your center helping grow the business now!

They just dont get the big picture....

 

[smf0605]

antispock .. You are right, the contract does say the employee can't be disciplined as a result of filing an on-the-job-injury. What you don't understand is that isn't the reason the employee will get the Warning Letter. The employee will get the Warning Letter for failing to work safely, as every employee has been trained to do.

 

[johnny_b]

Assuming AntiSpock is right, this would be very easy to grieve if there have not been a significant number of letters for non-injury unsafe work methods. In other words, if they haven't been giving letters without injuries, the letters are due to the injury -- not unsafe work methods, and prohibited by the contract. You would win at state for sure.

Another thing, when describing injuries, NEVER say you did anything wrong. They will ask you and ask you until you do, but tell them that if they don't stop you want a union steward and tell the union steward you are being harassed for having an injury, which is also prohibited by some section of the contract.

I don't see any reference to discipline in Article 14 in the old contract. Is it different in the new? What page is it on?

 

[antispock]

Too bad the warning letter would of never have happened if the person did not get injured.

And about working safe... save it, you can't always work "as trained." Especially during peak. There's no way. Anyone who claims you can should be given a warning letter because someone else is busting their ass getting that person help.

 

[proups]

I've been injured 3 times in 24 years and as I think back to those injuries (all in the Hub), they all could have been prevented if I had been doing what I was trained to do.

Too bad about the warning letter, but if you work safely - and nobody should ever bypass safety training for anything - you won't get injured.

I know that people will respond to this post telling me that we can't always work safe and do what is expected, but I know far too many people that make it through every peak, or every year for that matter, without getting hurt.

Having said that, a letter of concern would have been more appropriate if this was the person's first injury. Now if this person repeatedly gets injured, I think a warning letter is very appropriate. Just my humble opinion.

 

[dannyboy]

The warning letter should have been issued BEFORE the injury. You cant tell me with all the sups that we have that no one saw him working unsafe!

In our building they gave warning letters for a part timer crossing a moving belt. But when it was pointed out to them that part time sups were walking on moving belts, and every day, they retracted the warning letters and started with training. Now if they catch you on the belt, it is a one day suspension. Hourly and management alike.

Kinda like not wearing your seat belt. Zero tollerance. Catch you in a moving package car with out it on, and you are fired. Period. And it states in the contract that the union supports this action.

Give warning letters for refusing to work safe. But when injured, it shows a major failure of management to promote safety in their opperation and they want to shift the blame to the hourly.

Oh, 20% of all injuries in our center are management personel. And during the last strike, our regional safty manager was killed because of a mistake he made while driving a tractor trailor rig. You gonna give his family a warning letter? So accidents happen. We need to work together to keep them from happening

d

 

[tieguy]

No I think the region safety manager paid the price. Despite your best efforts many will not follow the training guidelines and many management do a poor job of correcting poor behavior. Individual behavior has been proven to be the biggest contributor to workplace injuries. We also give warning letters for accidents. I know your not telling me I should only give warning letters before the accident and not for it.

 

[antispock]

Okay, so if a warning letter should be issued, doesn't management have to observe something to give one? Or can they just go off their assumptions?

 

[dannyboy]

Tie guy, so why did the dead manager pay the price and not the injured employee? What is the difference? They both made a mistake. Only difference I see is that one has a chance to learn from it. And to do so, you must create at least the illusion that you care about the health and welfare of the employee. And giving the employee a warning letter is not conducive for learning, it just puts up a barrier between management and hourly. Kinda like a horse, break the bad habit, not the spirit. Or more like the owners of the Titanic, who sued the families of the crew that died for the cost of the lost uniforms and equipment. Is that the way to run a company? I dont think so.

I go over all the "official" injury reports for our centers, and many times the Root Cause put down by a sup is just plain BS. Like a driver that stepped out of a package car and twisted an ankle. The root cause was listed as not having the work in front of the body, allways put the work in the power zone.

The only way management can give you a warning letter is if they see you doing something wrong, or have other "provable" means to show you did something wrong. But to many managers, warning letters are just a no brainer knee jerk reaction that they think fixes all. Sorry, it might work on a dumb mule, but not on humans.

d

 

[dannyboy]

Oh and Tie Guy, that is EXACTLY what I am trying to tell you, change the oil before the engine blows. IT wont help one bit to change it once the piston comes through the side of the block.

d

 

[tieguy]

"Tie guy, so why did the dead manager pay the price and not the injured employee?"

I believe I'll take the warning letter over my death anyday. However feel free to file a grievance and request The dead man receives a warning letter if your so inclined.

 

[tieguy]

"I go over all the "official" injury reports for our centers, and many times the Root Cause put down by a sup is just plain BS. Like a driver that stepped out of a package car and twisted an ankle. The root cause was listed as not having the work in front of the body, allways put the work in the power zone."

Then you should be equally pissed when your union tries to make it sound like we are taking your drivers and twisting their ankles for them.

 

[dannyboy]

Tie Guy,

What can I say. Our centers have gone from worst to the most improved over the last 2 years. We had 29 injuries in 99, 21 in 00 and only 4 this year. In terms that you might understand, even after all the expenses that we used for safety awarness, we saved the center this year alone $47,000. And guess what, not one warning letter! }What we did took a lot of work, imagination, and the finger pointing was at ourselves. When someone gets hurt, we view it as our failure. THe blame stops with us. Your way, you are perfect and all the blame gets put on the injured employee. So how is your method working? What creative means do you use to keep the injuries from happening? OR do you use the baseball bat to punish poor behaivor. Much easier, but what are the results? Are they involved with prevention, or do they just have to listen to you tell them how stupid they are for getting hurt? Do the employees think you really give a d}amn about the fact that they got injured, or you are just justifying your incompetence to your managers.

As to the union, 4 of our safety committee are shop stewards. They understand how important safety is in the workplace. But with your stand on warning letters, and your oppinion on unions, no wonder you take the easy way out.

d