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
Local 878 Members - Southern Supplement
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="TIMN" data-source="post: 5671354" data-attributes="member: 106937"><p>Hey 878’ers. I’ve had some calls asking me to post here because some can’t attend the meetings for contract discussions.</p><p></p><p>On Monday Heath and I attended the 2-Person review in D.C. where we reviewed the National Master Tentative Agreement. Both he and I voted to recommend the National Master. I’ve never seen a perfect “contract” but I only see positive changes in this T/A as it applies to Local 878 members. There is a lot of debate across the country regarding the T/A’s impact on other regions and I can’t comment on those debates. My obligation is to report how I believe the T/A impacts Local 878 members and I really only see overall positive impacts.</p><p></p><p>We did not review the Southern Supplement on Monday but I have since received and reviewed Southern T/A. I’m sure I will be “punished” for this but I can not recommend the Southern Supplement because of one change to Article 51 adding a setting arbitrator to hear discipline cases at the Deadlock Committee if the chairpersons reach impasse. In theory, this change speeds up the grievance procedure, which I support. In reality, fewer than 5 disciplinary grievances per year, on average, are deadlocked to arbitration. That number is less than 1% of the total grievances docketed to the SRAPGC annually. </p><p></p><p>My concern is the proposal to add a setting arbitrator as opposed to traditional arbitration was apparently a company proposal which our union committee was forced to accept. Many of us have fought that proposal for many, many years because although a setting arbitrator may speed the process for approximately 5 grievants per year, it dramatically shifts the balance of power at the SRAPGC in the company’s favor.</p><p></p><p>At present the company must spend about $15,000.00, give or take, to arbitrate a case. This cost motivates the company to settle the overwhelming number of discipline cases docketed short of traditional arbitration. With a setting arbitrator that cost will be reduced to around $300 eliminating the incentive to settle cases and increasing the number of members ultimately fired. Look out if you are an activist.</p><p></p><p>The procedure is totally different for setting arbitrators vs traditional arbitration. A setting arbitrator actually sets at the SRAPGC and listens to the case as presented by the labor manager and business agent then provides a ruling in the event the chairpersons reach impasse. A traditional arbitration provides for a more formal hearing and the local union will typically have our attorneys present or assist in presentation of the case, examination, cross examination and witness preparation.</p><p></p><p>Also, the union has been very successful in the Southern Region at maintaining the “inclusivity” of Article 52 </p><p>“Cardinal Infractions” through traditional arbitration. It’s very likely the company will take advantage of a sitting arbitrator to expand the definition of “Cardinal Infractions”. There is no need to take that risk.</p><p></p><p>There are many ways to improve the efficiency of the grievance procedure, particularly for language cases. This company proposal is not the answer and I’m confused as to why we are being forced to accept this concession we’ve fought for so many years. That said, your contract, your vote. Don’t forget to return your ballots please!</p><p></p><p>-Tim</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TIMN, post: 5671354, member: 106937"] Hey 878’ers. I’ve had some calls asking me to post here because some can’t attend the meetings for contract discussions. On Monday Heath and I attended the 2-Person review in D.C. where we reviewed the National Master Tentative Agreement. Both he and I voted to recommend the National Master. I’ve never seen a perfect “contract” but I only see positive changes in this T/A as it applies to Local 878 members. There is a lot of debate across the country regarding the T/A’s impact on other regions and I can’t comment on those debates. My obligation is to report how I believe the T/A impacts Local 878 members and I really only see overall positive impacts. We did not review the Southern Supplement on Monday but I have since received and reviewed Southern T/A. I’m sure I will be “punished” for this but I can not recommend the Southern Supplement because of one change to Article 51 adding a setting arbitrator to hear discipline cases at the Deadlock Committee if the chairpersons reach impasse. In theory, this change speeds up the grievance procedure, which I support. In reality, fewer than 5 disciplinary grievances per year, on average, are deadlocked to arbitration. That number is less than 1% of the total grievances docketed to the SRAPGC annually. My concern is the proposal to add a setting arbitrator as opposed to traditional arbitration was apparently a company proposal which our union committee was forced to accept. Many of us have fought that proposal for many, many years because although a setting arbitrator may speed the process for approximately 5 grievants per year, it dramatically shifts the balance of power at the SRAPGC in the company’s favor. At present the company must spend about $15,000.00, give or take, to arbitrate a case. This cost motivates the company to settle the overwhelming number of discipline cases docketed short of traditional arbitration. With a setting arbitrator that cost will be reduced to around $300 eliminating the incentive to settle cases and increasing the number of members ultimately fired. Look out if you are an activist. The procedure is totally different for setting arbitrators vs traditional arbitration. A setting arbitrator actually sets at the SRAPGC and listens to the case as presented by the labor manager and business agent then provides a ruling in the event the chairpersons reach impasse. A traditional arbitration provides for a more formal hearing and the local union will typically have our attorneys present or assist in presentation of the case, examination, cross examination and witness preparation. Also, the union has been very successful in the Southern Region at maintaining the “inclusivity” of Article 52 “Cardinal Infractions” through traditional arbitration. It’s very likely the company will take advantage of a sitting arbitrator to expand the definition of “Cardinal Infractions”. There is no need to take that risk. There are many ways to improve the efficiency of the grievance procedure, particularly for language cases. This company proposal is not the answer and I’m confused as to why we are being forced to accept this concession we’ve fought for so many years. That said, your contract, your vote. Don’t forget to return your ballots please! -Tim [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Local 878 Members - Southern Supplement
Top