HazMat Responder Required on Preload?... Can bump higher seniority?

[bakagigee]

management is trained in hazmat responding because they are suppose to supervise and train the hazmat responders. They are also trained in preloading, so by your logic, maybe they should be doing that work also.

Trousers...

It's seems to me that to compare apples to apples, it would be more like saying that my supervisor would be allowed to do pre-load work if a rare instance occured when for some random reason, another person was needed on the pre-load sort and they could not get that on-call person in on time... Which is something that has actually occured at my facility.

There have been times where someone calls in sick, and the supervisor has stepped in and loaded trucks for an hour until the "on-call" pre-loader can come in.

So, I don't see why that can't do the same thing with a leaker. Someone in the trailer spots a leaker, the lower seniority person who is a trained responder is at home sleeping, management calls them to tell them to come in and process the leaker, then management contains the leaker and takes it to the processing station to await the on-call hazmat responder's arrival.

And that's exactly what they have been doing when our current responder is on vacation or was disabled for over a six month time period. They didn't have any other trained responder on our sort except management and we got along just fine. If they did it then, when she was on disability for 6 months, why can't they do it now.

I think the main point is that in our facility this responder position is completely voluntary and requires an additional degree of availability that is beyond what they said was required for our normal pre-load operations. Again, it seems to me that if they want a union responder on the sort so bad, then they need to create a specific position for them to be on that sort instead of bumping out someone with more seniority.

I would love to know if anyone out there has actually had this happen to them and if they have grieved it, and what came of it. Thanks again for your thoughts. It helps me think it through better so I am better prepared when they try to bump me out of my spot.

Any additional thoughts are greatly appreciated.

 

[bigblu 2 you]

seniority shall prevail at all times.over the last few years ups has said they can and will do a lot of things.contact your steward,b.a., and/or union hall.you could learn this would be a violation.i was told once we were to code out time spent drinking water at a water fountain.guess what? wrong.

 

[brown_trousers]

Trousers...

It's seems to me that to compare apples to apples, it would be more like saying that my supervisor would be allowed to do pre-load work if a rare instance occured when for some random reason, another person was needed on the pre-load sort and they could not get that on-call person in on time... Which is something that has actually occured at my facility.

There have been times where someone calls in sick, and the supervisor has stepped in and loaded trucks for an hour until the "on-call" pre-loader can come in.

So, I don't see why that can't do the same thing with a leaker. Someone in the trailer spots a leaker, the lower seniority person who is a trained responder is at home sleeping, management calls them to tell them to come in and process the leaker, then management contains the leaker and takes it to the processing station to await the on-call hazmat responder's arrival.

It doesn't work that way. Union jobs have to be offered to us union workers before management can step in to do the work. Its not acceptable to plan on management to cover union work when there is a union employee willing to do it. If your supervisor containerizes the leaker, then that in itself is a violation of our contract as they just performed work that should be performed by a union employee. Bottom line... we have fought very hard to keep union work within the union. Under no circumstances should we be letting management do any of our work, even if it is something small like containerizing a hazmat.

I can see where you are coming from not wanting to get bumped, and the contract language can be interpreted that way. But contract also defines hazmat responding as union work. So it goes both ways, the contract language conflicts with itself in this scenario. This probably wasn't a situation they had in mind while writing the contract.

 

[bakagigee]

Thanks Trousers,

I think you're absolutely right! If our managment was consistent in their practices and actually followed safety protocol and encouraged us to do the same, they might actually be able to find a volunteer that would be willing to do this. As it is... no one with half a brain on our sort wants to put themselves in this kind of position anymore.

Sad.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Management has asked the other pre-loaders if they would like to be trained, And, For various reasons being a HazMat responder is not an option for me.

If you have been provided the opportunity, is your only complaint... the start time ? Or being displaced from your shift ?



-Bug-

 

[Integrity]

upsguy72,

The specialized training required for this designation and the fact that the responder is selected in seniority order imply this scheduling preference for designated first responders.

It is the employers responsility to see that controls are in place to ensure the safety of the employees, having a designated responder is the contractually agreed upon control of potential hazarous spills in the UPS operations.

It would be unreasonable to expect the designated first responder not to be the first to arrive and the last to leave for the inside operation sorts.

You can find out more about the origins of this Union Supported designation at the following links:

United Parcel Service - 02/27/1992

United Parcel Service, Inc. - 04/01/1994

Sincerely,
I[/QUOTE

Again the CONTRACT where does it say that a lower seniority person hazmat trained can bump a higher seniority person not hazmat trained...

upsguy72,

Not sure you are going to find this spelled out like this. If you do let me know.

What you will find is the term "qualified to perform the work".

A permanent layoff might not give the designated first responder preference base upon "qualified to perform the work" language.

I am of the opinion that "qualified to perform the work" would apply to being the first in and the last out on a given day, even if there is a lay off for the day of more senior employees.

It is my strong recommendation that every rank and file member should obtain all training and qualifications offered by the company.

If you don't it can be viewed, and correctly so, that you are refusing the work that requires the qualifications and training.

I don't think that grieving for hours that you have already refused is a winnable case.

Sincerely,
I

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I don't think that grieving for hours that you have already refused is a winnable case.

That.... has to be the most lucid statement, I have seen you make.

And not one reference to Jesus. Good job.



-Bug-

 

[bakagigee]

My issue is that I wouldn't be grieving for hours that I refused to work as a hazmat responder, or hours that they were working as a hazmat responder and I wasn't. The point is that they are going to be working as a preloader 99.9% of the time and those are the hours that I would be grieving.

Add to this issue that they had someone who was willing to take the position all summer long but they waited and waited and by the time they offered it, the dates for the training conflicted with that seniority person's schedule, so now they can't do the training and become a responder so they are going to train someone below me and bump me out instead! That just seems fishy to me. If we have a higher seniority person who is willing to do the position, but the training dates conflict it would seem to me that they would need to wait for another training.

They want me to do the position because they know I would do it better than anyone else, and they are trying to force me into it. However, if you were in my sort and you knew how management abused people/policies you would want as little responsibility as possible. Also, shouldn't they have to post a bid sheet for this position? No such sheet has ever been posted, and this has all been done via word-of-mouth.

 

[brown_trousers]

My issue is that I wouldn't be grieving for hours that I refused to work as a hazmat responder, or hours that they were working as a hazmat responder and I wasn't. The point is that they are going to be working as a preloader 99.9% of the time and those are the hours that I would be grieving.

Add to this issue that they had someone who was willing to take the position all summer long but they waited and waited and by the time they offered it, the dates for the training conflicted with that seniority person's schedule, so now they can't do the training and become a responder so they are going to train someone below me and bump me out instead! That just seems fishy to me. If we have a higher seniority person who is willing to do the position, but the training dates conflict it would seem to me that they would need to wait for another training.

They want me to do the position because they know I would do it better than anyone else, and they are trying to force me into it. However, if you were in my sort and you knew how management abused people/policies you would want as little responsibility as possible. Also, shouldn't they have to post a bid sheet for this position? No such sheet has ever been posted, and this has all been done via word-of-mouth.

There is no legitimate grievance against a hazmat responder working when you are not, unless you are a responder with more seniority. The only thing you might be able to grieve is if the hazmat responder is also working as a preloader in addition to his responding duties, and that work displaces you.

You can grieve that he is stealing your preload work, but you cannot grieve that he is stealing your hazmat responding work. Either way, the responder will get more hours than you.

 

[UPSGUY72]

There is no legitimate grievance against a hazmat responder working when you are not, unless you are a responder with more seniority. The only thing you might be able to grieve is if the hazmat responder is also working as a preloader in addition to his responding duties, and that work displaces you.

You can grieve that he is stealing your preload work, but you cannot grieve that he is stealing your hazmat responding work. Either way, the responder will get more hours than you.

Hazmat responder is not a bid job if you get bump because they move a person with less seniority that is a hazmat responder to your shift I would grieve it every day... If it was a bid job that would be different..... IT's NOT A BID JOB. I

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Hazmat responder is not a bid job if you get bump because they move a person with less seniority that is a hazmat responder to your shift I would grieve it every day... If it was a bid job that would be different..... IT's NOT A BID JOB. I

It may not be a bid job but with only 7 people on a shift that requires a hazmat responder it's not hard to figure out that being a trained hazmat responder guarantees that you will be working every day.

 

[bakagigee]

And I have no problem with them working every day, as long as I am too!

I asked my steward about it and then since our district manager was there at the same time we all talked about it for a couple minutes and the district manager said that "Labor" said they could do it.

However, the look on his face told me his was surprised that I was willing to take it that far. He also seemed to get pretty antsy when I asked if they had that in writing anywhere. It leads me to believe that he's not as confident about his response to me as he wants to seem.

I have a call in to my Business Agent, and I will see what he says when he gets back to me.

I think that since it is not a bid job, and it is simply a position where you volunteer to help out with a hazmat every once-in-a-blue moon, but you spend 99% of your time doing regular pre-load duties that have nothing to do with hazmats, that there might be a case here.

I'll keep you posted on what I find out.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Hazmat responder is not a bid job.

It depends on where you are, and what your local seniority practice is. In my area, they are bid 22.3 jobs.... So there is always someone available.

Even if they are not bid jobs, someone just can't bump a "qualified" lower seniority person out of their job. They would have to wait for an opening.

Sometimes, it's easy to work things out in a small center.... Where there is not a lot of history on the issue. Other times it's very limited on what can be done.

I will be interested to see what happens in this case. Won't be too surprised.... either way.



-Bug-

 

[brown_trousers]

Hazmat responder is not a bid job if you get bump because they move a person with less seniority that is a hazmat responder to your shift I would grieve it every day... If it was a bid job that would be different..... IT's NOT A BID JOB. I

Its not a bid job, but it is a UNION job. And it requires someone to be on duty at all times during the sort.

Your grievance would imply that you want management to perform union work as a hazmat responder, is this really the case? What would you request for a resolution on your grievance? Because it sounds like you are OK with management performing union work.

 

[brown_trousers]

I think that since it is not a bid job, and it is simply a position where you volunteer to help out with a hazmat every once-in-a-blue moon, but you spend 99% of your time doing regular pre-load duties that have nothing to do with hazmats, that there might be a case here.

As a former hazmat responder in a small center, you are correct. I maybe responded 4-5 times a month at most. But if your facility is actually following hazmat procedures correctly, then a leaker can pretty much completely halt production in a small facility until someone responds to it. For example: if a leaker was discovered on the main belt in your facility, the correct procedure would be to shut that belt down and leave the package there until a hazmat responder can get to it. This is why a responder is required to be on duty at all times.

 

[Justaname]

I work at a small rural facility where we have a total of 7 people working the morning preload from 6-9:30am in the morning. Recently the lady who had been the hazmat responder decided to stop doing it. Management has asked the other pre-loaders if they would like to be trained, and up to this point everyone has said, "No."

Today they said that anyone who agrees to be trained as a hazmat responder would automatically be scheduled ahead of people with higher seniority to work the morning sort because they need to have a HazMat responder on the sort?

Is this true? I'm asking because if it is, and someone with lower seniority than me takes the HazMat position then it would likely bump me out of a regular position in the mornings.

We have another person in the evenings who is a trained responder, and I thought all of the management were trained responders, so why can't they just have management pull a leaker off, and then either do it themselves, or call in someone else who is a trained responder to handle it, especially the person with low seniority?

For various reasons being a HazMat responder is not an option for me, and it seems unfair that I would lose my spot in the schedule to a lower seniority person because I can not, or will not be a responder.

Please let me know whether you think they can do this and why. And also give me any advice you can on how I should handle this issue. Thank you so much.

Baka

Your center sounds just like mine. I'm the responder for the preload, although I recently just asked to withdraw. Management will not let me respond properly, and I'm not about to let a bad situation be on my hands. I have enough seniority to where I will not be bumped. Do not let management take over your work. The little jobs add up and could lead to positions lost. We went from 8 preloaders to 7 in the last year with an increase in volume. If you want the security then take the job. Just remember if you respond then your spot must be covered by an hourly and not management. Good luck.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

I'm the responder for the preload, although I recently just asked to withdraw. Management will not let me respond properly, and I'm not about to let a bad situation be on my hands.

If you are a qualified hazmat responder, And the company is not allowing you to respond the way you have been trained....

Call your Local, file a grievance, and file a complaint with OSHA. In that order.

How to File a Complaint with OSHA



-Bug-

 

[UPSGUY72]

Its not a bid job, but it is a UNION job. And it requires someone to be on duty at all times during the sort.

Your grievance would imply that you want management to perform union work as a hazmat responder, is this really the case? What would you request for a resolution on your grievance? Because it sounds like you are OK with management performing union work.

The grievance would be they need to create another position to accommodate the new person on the shift not bump someone with higher seniority ... The union doesn't make job up the company does. A hazmat responde is not a specific job it's a additional job/ duty on top of your real job (driver/ loader , unloader, etc ) that the person volunteered for they didn't bid it...

Seniority rules in the the union once you start to make exception to this rules where do you draw the line and who drawing it?

 

[verratio]

On my sort, (at a large Hub) We actually have FT responders, who bid on those positions... Our problem is different then what is stated in this thread. They initially Offered 6 FT responder buds, with a Midnight Responder, Preload Loader split. They start at 10:30PM, but are off the clock at 3AM, and our sort runs to nearly 4AM regularly. When the FT hit there 4hrs. They are gone, leaving just the handful of PT responders to do whatever work is left over. Leaving work for another sort is frowned upon, since management, theoretically, should extend the run time to allow for the packages to be proceeded during the sort. I know I am waylaid with my own responses during the course of a night, so cleaning up a previous sorts work on top of my own, is going to only create bad blood between the sort workers. It is up to management to adjust things to meet the needs of their sort. If a sort has designated to leave work for another sort, they should start the following sorts responder(s) earlier. If they want to put a responder on a sort to cover where there is a gap, them they are just going to have to add an employee to the sort, no "bumping" needed. It shouldn't fall on the hourlies to come up with the budgeting to pay someone for a shifted, or doubling employee. The company is just going to have to bite the bullet, and work their current complement, plus 1.

 

[John67]

I work at a small rural facility where we have a total of 7 people working the morning preload from 6-9:30am in the morning. Recently the lady who had been the hazmat responder decided to stop doing it. Management has asked the other pre-loaders if they would like to be trained, and up to this point everyone has said, "No."

Today they said that anyone who agrees to be trained as a hazmat responder would automatically be scheduled ahead of people with higher seniority to work the morning sort because they need to have a HazMat responder on the sort?

Is this true? I'm asking because if it is, and someone with lower seniority than me takes the HazMat position then it would likely bump me out of a regular position in the mornings.

We have another person in the evenings who is a trained responder, and I thought all of the management were trained responders, so why can't they just have management pull a leaker off, and then either do it themselves, or call in someone else who is a trained responder to handle it, especially the person with low seniority?

For various reasons being a HazMat responder is not an option for me, and it seems unfair that I would lose my spot in the schedule to a lower seniority person because I can not, or will not be a responder.

Please let me know whether you think they can do this and why. And also give me any advice you can on how I should handle this issue. Thank you so much.

Baka

Does a supervisor have to be certified as a hazmat or is it just preloaders