Future for Article 22.3 jobs?

[Dark_Team_135]

We need to throw the other bums (TDU, or whoever) in, if what you say is right. The clear language that was negotiated says (a) that the number (20,000) must be kept AND (b) that the jobs on the list (which have a number, a name, and two location-specified and function-specific parts) must be maintained. It's one thing to negotiate a lousy contract in return for poured into the Central States rathole. They sold it to a majority of the voters and the rest of us will just have to suck it up. But to just roll over on violations of the language that was voted on is beyond sellout. I'm not paying dues to these clowns so they can "work with" the company on how to screw me over. If the company violates the contract and the union won't bust its chops, what good is it?

If you think about it, I can see that this issue had to have come up in some form during the negotiations. I can't imagine UPS agreeing to keep jobs in a location that has fallen so low on volume that it hasn't got enough work to keep the combo employees working. Right now, combo jobs are the only jobs at UPS that are protected from elimination. Can you imagine a building that had been completely closed down for lack of volume with 100 combo employees acting as security guards because there was nothing else to do?

If we could get a copy of the bargaining notes, I bet this situation was discussed. I am guessing that the problem is that the Union didn't consider the possibility of UPS completely dissolving these jobs in one state and allegedly creating them in another. Some restrictions on the company's right to do this should have been negotiated.

Let's hope that during the negotiations the Union actually discussed this issue and at least recorded some talk of restrictions in the bargaining notes that an arbitrator can use to stop some of this.

BTW - In addition to the Central States payout, let's not forget the "gift" of 12,000 UPS Freight members as another reason for this contract being negotiated and sold to the members...

 

[gandydancer]

If you think about it, I can see that this issue had to have come up in some form during the negotiations. I can't imagine UPS agreeing to keep jobs in a location that has fallen so low on volume that it hasn't got enough work to keep the combo employees working. Right now, combo jobs are the only jobs at UPS that are protected from elimination. Can you imagine a building that had been completely closed down for lack of volume with 100 combo employees acting as security guards because there was nothing else to do?

Not an issue. If you shut a building [an]other more-or-less local building or buildings would have to service the pickups and deliveries, and no one would question that a job was "maintained" as long as it followed the work. And if the company wanted to start laying off 22.3's AFTER laying off all the part-timers with less company senioriity I certainly wouldn't question reopening the contract to eliminate the guarantee. But that's a purely theoretical possibility which bears no resemblance to what is happening in JC28, and maybe elsewhere.

If we could get a copy of the bargaining notes, I bet this situation was discussed. I am guessing that the problem is that the Union didn't consider the possibility of UPS completely dissolving these jobs in one state and allegedly creating them in another. Some restrictions on the company's right to do this should have been negotiated.

Let's hope that during the negotiations the Union actually discussed this issue and at least recorded some talk of restrictions in the bargaining notes that an arbitrator can use to stop some of this...

No, that's bassackwards. We don't need restrictions on the company's "right" to eliminate 22.3 jobs and recreate the same number in some other state. The plain meaning of the contract says they can't do that. It's the company that needs to prove to an arbitrator that the union negotiators agreed to something different than what they put before the membership. Unless hall rolls over to prevent the company from showing exactly that, or because he's otherwise sold out.

 

[Dark_Team_135]

Not an issue. If you shut a building [an]other more-or-less local building or buildings would have to service the pickups and deliveries, and no one would question that a job was "maintained" as long as it followed the work. And if the company wanted to start laying off 22.3's AFTER laying off all the part-timers with less company senioriity I certainly wouldn't question reopening the contract to eliminate the guarantee. But that's a purely theoretical possibility which bears no resemblance to what is happening in JC28, and maybe elsewhere.

I admittedly was using an over-the-top example to make a point. I wasn't really referring to a building that was closed completely since I know there is language that covers that situation. But you know situations like this one you mentioned had to have been discussed, so why is there no language in the contract concerning it specifically?

No, that's bassackwards. We don't need restrictions on the company's "right" to eliminate 22.3 jobs and recreate the same number in some other state. The plain meaning of the contract says they can't do that. It's the company that needs to prove to an arbitrator that the union negotiators agreed to something different than what they put before the membership. Unless hall rolls over to prevent the company from showing exactly that, or because he's otherwise sold out.

There is no "plain meaning" at all here. That is the problem. If the contract doesn't specifically state that the company can't move these jobs around, then it is up to an arbitrator (if it goes that far) to interpret this language.

One thing that will weigh heavily is which party actually selected this language in the first place. When there is contract language that can have more than one meaning, the one that is less favorable to the party that supplied the language is preferred. Even if the language were clear on its face, there can be ambiguity as to the application of it because it might conflict with other parts of the contract.

There are many other principles that an arbitrator can use to settle this of course (See "How Arbitration Works - Elkouri & Elkouri") for a list of them. The point is that this issue isn't specifically addressed, so it is up for debate as to what the parties actually intended when the language about identifying the current combo positions to be protected was drafted. So again, I hope the union at least kept some detailed bargaining notes during negotiation on this subject that were favorable to our position.

 

[gandydancer]

There is no "plain meaning" at all here...

"the Employer shall provide...a report detailing and identifying the full-time jobs which will need to be maintained pursuant to this paragraph."
The employer must maintain the listed jobs, not merely a certain number of jobs. Seems plain enough to me.

 

[fethrs]

This is what I was curious to know. I do not have any serious reason for concern over my own particular job, but I wanted to know whether I would be forced back to part-time status if the unthinkable did occur. Thanks for your input.

My local union rep was in my building today and said he didn't know much about layoffs at my hub. He said one of the best positions to have was the combo 22.3 inside/inside job, which I have, and that those may not be affected by any layoffs.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

My local union rep was in my building today and said he didn't know much about layoffs at my hub. He said one of the best positions to have was the combo 22.3 inside/inside job, which I have, and that those may not be affected by any layoffs.

They can be moved anywhere though. The language only says a number must be maintained. I don't feel very secure personally. Not talking in the next 2 months, but down the road a bit..

 

[gandydancer]

They can be moved anywhere though. The language only says a number must be maintained...

The second sentence is simply and obviously false. The first sentence of the second paragraph of 22.3 says a number must be maintained. But the section doesn't stop. Again,

"Article 22, Section 3

The parties agree that providing part-time employees the opportunity to become full-time employees is a priority of this Agreement. Accordingly, the Employer commits that during the life of this Agreement, it will offer part-time employees the opportunity to fill at least twenty thousand (20,000) PERMANENT fulltime job openings throughout its operations covered by this Agreement.​

The number of full-time jobs created under Article 22, Section 3 of the 1997-2002 and the 2002-2008 Agreements shall not be reduced. Within sixty (60) days of the ratification of this Agreement the Employer shall provide the International Teamsters Union a report detailing and IDENTIFYING THE FULL TIME JOBS which will need to be MAINTAINED pursuant to this paragraph."

The "language" DOESN'T say "ONLY [[that]] a number must be maintained". It says further that there will be a list identifying and detailing 20,000 PERMANENT full time, specific and particular full time jobs that must be maintained, as a "priority of this Agreement" (the same language which guarantees the recognition of seniority rights). Parse the sentence. The noun is JOBS, not NUMBER OF JOBS. And "maintain" is a verb which has meaning in the English language. If you polish your silverware, that's called maintenance. If you throw out your forks after one use, that's called disposable. The opposite of "permanent". "Maintenance" implies and requires continuity. The plain meaning of the section isn't mysterious or obscure. Why you are determined not to admit it is, however, both.​

 

[Dark_Team_135]

The second sentence is simply and obviously false. The first sentence of the second paragraph of 22.3 says a number must be maintained. But the section doesn't stop. Again,

"Article 22, Section 3

The parties agree that providing part-time employees the opportunity to become full-time employees is a priority of this Agreement. Accordingly, the Employer commits that during the life of this Agreement, it will offer part-time employees the opportunity to fill at least twenty thousand (20,000) PERMANENT fulltime job openings throughout its operations covered by this Agreement.​

The number of full-time jobs created under Article 22, Section 3 of the 1997-2002 and the 2002-2008 Agreements shall not be reduced. Within sixty (60) days of the ratification of this Agreement the Employer shall provide the International Teamsters Union a report detailing and IDENTIFYING THE FULL TIME JOBS which will need to be MAINTAINED pursuant to this paragraph."

The "language" DOESN'T say "ONLY [[that]] a number must be maintained". It says further that there will be a list identifying and detailing 20,000 PERMANENT full time, specific and particular full time jobs that must be maintained, as a "priority of this Agreement" (the same language which guarantees the recognition of seniority rights). Parse the sentence. The noun is JOBS, not NUMBER OF JOBS. And "maintain" is a verb which has meaning in the English language. If you polish your silverware, that's called maintenance. If you throw out your forks after one use, that's called disposable. The opposite of "permanent". "Maintenance" implies and requires continuity. The plain meaning of the section isn't mysterious or obscure. Why you are determined not to admit it is, however, both.​

As you already wrote the opening paragraph states that there will be 20,000 permanent jobs openings filled throughout its operations. They are just talking about through attrition since that language has been in the contract for many years.

In YOUR opinion the language that follows compels the company to keep the previously created combo jobs in the exact location where they were originally created. As I have stated before, because the contract doesn't specifically state that the company has to do this, it will likely be an arbitrator's opinion that will decide who is right on this.

If I have time, I will find some decisions where the language seemed on the surface to be perfectly clear (much more than this language) but were ultimately found by an arbitrator to be not so clear...

Again, I hope you are right, but it isn't as cut-and-dry as you seem to believe. If it were, the company wouldn't be doing it already. Remember, they have many lawyers on the payroll that I am sure have looked at this language already.

Did you do what I asked you to and have your Local's B.A. contact the IBT to get their opinion on the subject to see if it has changed?

 

[UnconTROLLed]

As you already wrote the opening paragraph states that there will be 20,000 permanent jobs openings filled throughout its operations. They are just talking about through attrition since that language has been in the contract for many years.

In YOUR opinion the language that follows compels the company to keep the previously created combo jobs in the exact location where they were originally created. As I have stated before, because the contract doesn't specifically state that the company has to do this, it will likely be an arbitrator's opinion that will decide who is right on this.

If I have time, I will find some decisions where the language seemed on the surface to be perfectly clear (much more than this language) but were ultimately found by an arbitrator to be not so clear...

Again, I hope you are right, but it isn't as cut-and-dry as you seem to believe. If it were, the company wouldn't be doing it already. Remember, they have many lawyers on the payroll that I am sure have looked at this language already.

Did you do what I asked you to and have your Local's B.A. contact the IBT to get their opinion on the subject to see if it has changed?

Thank you for making my point. It is not cut and dry at all.

The PERMANENT jobs do not necessarily mean PERMANENT as to location. This means a permanent JOB AVAILABILITY to the 20,000 created and maintained, IMO. There is no language saying that each job must be maintained IN THE BUILDING OR OPERATION THEY WERE CREATED. That right there tells me that if UPS needs flexibility when bids come, or operations change, they will get that flexibility.

I certainly hope for the best but this is NOT language that can be interpeted by any of us for fact. Again, this is another reason I for one voted no. Vague language may once again will come to bite some of us in the ass.

 

[gandydancer]

As you already wrote the opening paragraph states that there will be 20,000 permanent jobs openings filled throughout its operations. They are just talking about through attrition since that language has been in the contract for many years.

In YOUR opinion the language that follows compels the company to keep the previously created combo jobs in the exact location where they were originally created. As I have stated before, because the contract doesn't specifically state that the company has to do this, it will likely be an arbitrator's opinion that will decide who is right on this.

If I have time, I will find some decisions where the language seemed on the surface to be perfectly clear (much more than this language) but were ultimately found by an arbitrator to be not so clear...

Again, I hope you are right, but it isn't as cut-and-dry as you seem to believe. If it were, the company wouldn't be doing it already. Remember, they have many lawyers on the payroll that I am sure have looked at this language already.

Did you do what I asked you to and have your Local's B.A. contact the IBT to get their opinion on the subject to see if it has changed?

Actually, the local wheel's title is Secty-Treas. He's been on the negotiating committees and shows up in the group shots in the Teamster mag. The BA is just his flunky, fifth level in the hierarchy (Hoffa-hall-Chuck Mack-my SectyTreas - BA). He said he understood it the way I did - had heard of the other interpretation, but rejected it. But he's kickin' back and may not be that much in the loop now...

It's not just my opinion that the contract talks about "permanent fulltime job openings" and "the full time jobs which will need to be maintained". Those are quotes. You'd really have to torture the English language to come up with the "interpretation" that "permanent" doesn't really modify "jobs" or that the fulltime job that ImTheMan had is still "permanent" even though HE's been sent back to part time.

The language is clear. The history of what 22.3 was intended to accomplish is clear. The idiocy of asserting that UPS is maintaining parmanent jobs when it can arbitrarily shut one down in one place as long as it, after some indeterminate interval, starts someone else in 22.3 progression someplace else is clear. That is my "opinion" in the same sense as it is my "opinion" that water is wet -- there is no reasonable counter-opinion. What the arbitrator will decide may well depend on what the people who pay his rather lush fees tell him to say, rather than on what the language or the history of the language indicate he ought to decide. Hoffa may have told UPS the company can do what it wants to the 22.3s as a throw-in on the Central States payoff and UPS Freight dues, and the "arbitrators" job will in that case be to try to make the unreasonable seem reasonable. But it's not.

 

[Dark_Team_135]

The language is clear. The history of what 22.3 was intended to accomplish is clear. The idiocy of asserting that UPS is maintaining parmanent jobs when it can arbitrarily shut one down in one place as long as it, after some indeterminate interval, starts someone else in 22.3 progression someplace else is clear. That is my "opinion" in the same sense as it is my "opinion" that water is wet -- there is no reasonable counter-opinion. What the arbitrator will decide may well depend on what the people who pay his rather lush fees tell him to say, rather than on what the language or the history of the language indicate he ought to decide. Hoffa may have told UPS the company can do what it wants to the 22.3s as a throw-in on the Central States payoff and UPS Freight dues, and the "arbitrators" job will in that case be to try to make the unreasonable seem reasonable. But it's not.

I agree with you on all of this. The problem is that the Union left this open by not being more specific with their intentions (maybe intentionally?) with the final language that was added in the contract. Unless there can be a side letter or something added on, this will be hanging over our heads for the next five years. Something needs to be decided so this doesn't spread throughout the entire country...

 

[gandydancer]

I agree with you on all of this. The problem is that the Union left this open by not being more specific with their intentions (maybe intentionally?) with the final language that was added in the contract. Unless there can be a side letter or something added on, this will be hanging over our heads for the next five years. Something needs to be decided so this doesn't spread throughout the entire country...

Thanks. Indeed the union has a history of not enforcing the clear language of 22.3, notably the previous language about no pt losing his job in order to create a 22.3 job. But let's not confuse hall being obtuse about the clear meaning of the language he (re)negotiated (which has been reported on this board), which if true can only be bad faith, with an actual ambiguity in the intended meaning. It's absolutely clear that what the company is doing contravenes the stated intent (a path to fulltime career jobs for parttimers) of the previous union negotiators (the TDU crowd) in 1997 in negotiating 22.3 with the company, and that the company understood that intent at the time. And the language does, in fact, reflect this. Yes, it's contract law, not mathematics, and clever lawyers can't be prevented from manufacturing ambiguity out of the fact that words are not in fact well-defined mathematical constructs. But let's not confuse matters by pretending that what happened to ImThe Man is compatable with the '97 agreement. It's not, and that's a fact, not a mere "opinion".

 

[I'mTheMan]

Thanks. Indeed the union has a history of not enforcing the clear language of 22.3, notably the previous language about no pt losing his job in order to create a 22.3 job. But let's not confuse hall being obtuse about the clear meaning of the language he (re)negotiated (which has been reported on this board), which if true can only be bad faith, with an actual ambiguity in the intended meaning. It's absolutely clear that what the company is doing contravenes the stated intent (a path to fulltime career jobs for parttimers) of the previous union negotiators (the TDU crowd) in 1997 in negotiating 22.3 with the company, and that the company understood that intent at the time. And the language does, in fact, reflect this. Yes, it's contract law, not mathematics, and clever lawyers can't be prevented from manufacturing ambiguity out of the fact that words are not in fact well-defined mathematical constructs. But let's not confuse matters by pretending that what happened to ImThe Man is compatable with the '97 agreement. It's not, and that's a fact, not a mere "opinion".

There no need to pretend of me gandydander. I believed that this 22.3 contract has something missing but I don't think this is strong as this is but I think we're talking of "not in our favor" issue that this is going to be awhile as we go along with this to panel in 2009. It could take a long time before an decision is made to the union when it's gets decided by the union, not the company.

 

[feederdriver06]

I thought the national agreement states that the current number of 22.3 jobs "shall not be reduced" so the number of jobs nationally should stay the same. At least in a perfect world they would. My building has made changes to some of the 22.3 jobs but the number has stayed the same. I've talked to our business agent from time to time about this just being curious. I advocate the 22.3 jobs. I was one before I became a feeder driver.

 

[gandydancer]

There no need to pretend of me gandydander. I believed that this 22.3 contract has something missing but I don't think this is strong as this is but I think we're talking of "not in our favor" issue that this is going to be awhile as we go along with this to panel in 2009. It could take a long time before an decision is made to the union when it's gets decided by the union, not the company.

As usual, I can't make head nor tail of what you're saying. Anyway, if it goes to an arb and the arb makes a decision on the merits then UPS can't win. So the real question is: If the union agreed to sell us out, will it stay bought?

I thought the national agreement states that the current number of 22.3 jobs "shall not be reduced" so the number of jobs nationally should stay the same....

It says that too. But it says more. Read up the thread a bit.

 

[I'mTheMan]

I thought the national agreement states that the current number of 22.3 jobs "shall not be reduced" so the number of jobs nationally should stay the same. At least in a perfect world they would. My building has made changes to some of the 22.3 jobs but the number has stayed the same. I've talked to our business agent from time to time about this just being curious. I advocate the 22.3 jobs. I was one before I became a feeder driver.

Well, in this difficult case been on, I agree with you. It should be the same as translates as maintain these jobs in same location. Also each year, these bids for new jobs were supposed to be create also but didn't happen this year so instead, the company were going to different direction by axed 22.3 to part time instead so right now, we can't know anything till panel hearing to see if we still get our stronger case or deadlocked cases for those 22.3 jobs. Right now I am a 22.3 full timer but UPS has forced me to part time at another location nearly 4 months ago, but union has grievances on that to me and everyone who got forced back to part time so it may take awhile till we can know anything from there and what our future is going to be. The problem is right now is to fight to get our volume back so we can do our jobs instead ups having putting volume elsewhere across the county to make the numbers looks good so UPS can axed these 22.3 jobs, thats why.

 

[I'mTheMan]

As usual, I can't make head nor tail of what you're saying. Anyway, if it goes to an arb and the arb makes a decision on the merits then UPS can't win. So the real question is: If the union agreed to sell us out, will it stay bought?

That's an interesting question but honestly, I had a hard time keeping up the faith if the union is still on our side or the company's side? My problem is that I couldn't get the union to hear my or other voices to tell of what exactly happen of how the company is running it and taking our volumes away to make the numbers looked good? Right now I'm hearing that more than several 22.3 co-workers want to stand up and fight to get our job back at the same location where we got layoff from. Plus, wanted to fight for our volumes back too, but I don't know if that will make it work or happen so there's no way of knowing to tell about it.