It Appears I'm Being Fired - Please help...

[tieguy]

Tie, no one is saying the steward has the right to control and disrupt the meeting.

If you can't find Weingarten Rights in any of the hundreds of thousands of Internet search "hits" you received, try this one . . .
http://uwua132.org/stewards_rights_during_investiga.htm
It has footnotes leading you to the original decisions.

I've found a lot of references similar to yours . I have not found the legal language that supports the rights of a steward to be more then a witness.

You seem unaware of the very fundamental American principle that to be guilty of a crime, one must have intent to commit the crime. LTD was unaware his license was invalid. There is no such thing as ESP. He had no reason to be aware his license had been suspended.

Not necessarily. I'm sure there have been quite a few people caught holding the murder weapon who were convicted without intent. If Living had been pulled over by the police its possible he would have ended up jail and been left to convince a judge of his innocence.

As I said before, the burden of proof is on UPS to demonstrate LTD deserves to be fired for cause. After they finished their illegal fishing expedition, they asked him about his license. I assume he took it out, and showed them that he had it, and that is was not expired. It appeared valid, and he assumed it was. There is no crime here.

This is one of those exceptions to your burden of proof rule. In this case Living has been driving on a suspended license. A violation of law. As such UPS does not have to prove knowledge they could simply fire him for violating the laws that govern his driving on a suspended license and the laws that require him to notify his emplyor when his license was suspended. In this case the burden of proof is actually on living to prove he did not violate the law.

However, since UPS had other knowledge that the license was suspended, and now LTD knows it too, now it would be illegal for LTD to drive, until he gets the problem cleared up.

This is a "victimless crime." A bureaucratic mixup, that management exploited by trying to lure LTD into admiting guilt where no such admission was warranted. No one is in any danger on the roads as a result of a license being declared invalid. LTD didn't suddenly "forget" how to drive, just because his license was suspended. It's not his fault the bureaucracy doesn't follow through when a notice they sent him gets returned, undelivered.

Its not really a bureacratic mixup. Its unusual in that Livings house burned down temporarily disrupting his mail. Had he immediately gone to his post office and made arrangements for an alternate delivery point then he would have gotten his notice and known that he had issues. Legally he is responsible for ensuring motor vehicles has his correct address. His ignorance would not have been a valid excuse had he gotten pulled over by the police. At UPS however we can always muddy the waters and somehow blame ups for livings failures. In any case Living could have been discharged upon discovery. The fact UPS did not do so is a credit to his management team.

My last thought for you on this topic. At some point we as adults have to learn to stop trying to blame UPS for our own shortcomings and learn to accept responsibility for our own actions or our own inactions.

 

[jimstud]

Its not really a bureacratic mixup. Its unusual in that Livings house burned down temporarily disrupting his mail. Had he immediately gone to his post office and made arrangements for an alternate delivery point then he would have gotten his notice and known that he had issues. Legally he is responsible for ensuring motor vehicles has his correct address. His ignorance would not have been a valid excuse had he gotten pulled over by the police. At UPS however we can always muddy the waters and somehow blame ups for livings failures. In any case Living could have been discharged upon discovery. The fact UPS did not do so is a credit to his management team.

My last thought for you on this topic. At some point we as adults have to learn to stop trying to blame UPS for our own shortcomings and learn to accept responsibility for our own actions or our own inactions.

as usual a ups management member does not take into consideration that we are all human and we make mistakes.and as a steward i am not just a witness.

 

[dannyboy]

Tie

The responsibility of Living in a dream is documented. Ignorance of the law is never a legal excuse for violation of the law. That issue has tons of legal precedence set over the years for it to be very established.

And as you point out, he did have the responsibility to notify the postal service of his new address, something he didn't seem important enough to post about or do. So in addition to the other issues he neglected, it would seem that he is very sloppy at best.

The issue that most of us have had with the whole thing is not the issue of discipline, but of methods used by the company to gather information. Those actions have yet to be denounced by you as at least in very poor judgment, if not wrong period. It would seem that you support that action over the right of the steward to stop such actions.

Given your normal responses, I do find that somewhat out of character.

As for living, this whole situation is wrong on so many different levels, and the majority self inflicted. Its almost like he is not only content but relishes the thought of being a victim on so many different levels. To the point of "dont want to stand next to me, in case the bad luck rubs off". Bad luck happens, bad choices with bad results have nothing to do with luck, they are dependable on the outcome as taking a gun and putting it to your head and pulling the trigger. So why are people surprised when the inevitable occurs and call it bad luck instead of what it really is, irresponsibility.

d

 

[JonFrum]

Tie

The responsibility of Living in a dream is documented. Ignorance of the law is never a legal excuse for violation of the law. That issue has tons of legal precedence set over the years for it to be very established.

And as you point out, he did have the responsibility to notify the postal service of his new address, something he didn't seem important enough to post about or do. So in addition to the other issues he neglected, it would seem that he is very sloppy at best. . .

Danny, LTD is not ignorant of the Law. He's not using that as an excuse. He was well aware that one needs a valid driver's license to operate a motor vehicle. Which is why he had a valid license originally and had it renewed as needed.

What he wasn't aware of, and what I think is a legitimate excuse, is he didn't know the bureaucrats invalidated his license without making much of an effort to tell him. Maybe they think his "offense" is trivial, which it is. (Some police departments don't even execute real arrest warrants on real criminals. They wait until the offender has a run-in with the police and the warrant shows up on the police car's laptop.)

Do you have any evidence that the Post Office wasn't aware that the house he lived in burned down? Or that they at least didn't know his new address? Shouldn't the regular mailman see the smouldering ruins and hold the mail at the local Post Office so LTD could pick it up; and eventually give them a forewarding address?

One huge problem with holding people responsible for "crimes" they are not aware of is that UPS would now be guilty and punishable for all the illegal shipments of drugs, weapons, fireworks, alcohol, child porn, scams, etc. that they transport and deliver.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

as usual a ups management member does not take into consideration that we are all human and we make mistakes.and as a steward i am not just a witness.

You are a steward?

And do not know how many years until you are vested for a pension? (per another thread) ...and the other misinformation you speak

That is sad my friend, but typical of many UPS Local 25 stewards.

 

[soberups]

I checked ART 10 and nowhere in it do I see where inadvertantly driving on a suspended license is grounds for termination. The article mainly speaks to the rights of an an employee who has been charged with DUII to keep his/her employment in a non-driving capacity.

From the original description of livinthedream's questioning, the sups were on a "fishing expedition" trying to catch livin in a lie...which would be grounds for termination. This tells me that (a) the sups knew his lisence was suspended (b) they knew that a termination for driving on one probably wouldnt be upheld so (c) they wanted to trick him into telling a lie that would get him fired.

One important distinction in this situation is that the suspension was an administrative issue vs. a criminal issue. I know that, in my state at least, there is a clear distinction made between driving-while-suspended for failing to pay a ticket for a non-moving violation vs. driving-while-suspended for the crime of DUII or hit and run.

Failing to pay a ticket for a lapsed inspection sticker is not a criminal act, particularly in light of the documentable issues involved with interrupted mail delivery due to a house fire. Its not an excuse; ultimately each individual is responsible for maintaining their license; but it is not a crime for whch termination of employment is an appropriate consequence.

 

[jimstud]

You are a steward?

And do not know how many years until you are vested for a pension? (per another thread) ...and the other misinformation you speak

That is sad my friend, but typical of many UPS Local 25 stewards.

i did make a mistake on being vested but it was 10 not 5 when i started and i am not in 25. what was the other misinformation?

 

[Livin the Dream?]

I think this thread has become incredibly interesting, and I appreciate everyone's input.

Ultimately, the fault is mine - I never intended to say it was anyone else's. There is no doubt that I drove for 5-6 months with a suspended license. I did not know, and had no reason to confirm at any point that my license was valid or suspended.

Friday Afternoon, status was "waiting for documentation from PennDot.

An interesting angle on this (not a vengeful one at all) is that if I should be fired for this, then UPS should be fined for having an unlicensed driver operating their vehicles.

Again, I want to clarify that at no time did I "blame" ups for any of this mess. I'm thankful I had not done anything wrong at UPS, otherwise I would have blathered on like an idiot at the initial questioning.

It is my understanding now that I WAS to be fired that day (two Thursday's ago) but that the timing of other life events were realized as we all spoke. Within 24 hours all paperwork was in order, with names, numbers of everyone I spoke with. Don't know what tomorrow will bring, but I'll keep you posted.

 

[trplnkl]

Is it a LAW or a contractual obligation that a driver with suspended license notify UPS? I'm thinking it's the later not the former. I do understand that anyone that has a suspended of expired license or DOT physical has the responsibility to NOT drive during that time.

 

[dannyboy]

status was "waiting for documentation from PennDot.

That is what I posted above was more than likely happening.

After they get the documentation back, they will either put you back on road, or possibly give you a suspension for a few days, then back on road. Personally, I lean to getting you back on road with probably a warning letter, time served. I would not expect back pay if you are out money.

All of the above is of course dependent on if you posted 100% of the truth. My gut tells me while you might be a bit stupid (for lack of a better word) in some of the areas in your life, you are not a liar.

Keep us updated, as that documentation might be another week or two.

d

 

[Livin the Dream?]

...
All of the above is of course dependent on if you posted 100% of the truth. My gut tells me while you might be a bit stupid (for lack of a better word) in some of the areas in your life, you are not a liar....
d

Thanks? Perhaps a thesaurus as a thank-you gift?

I've been 100% complete, truthful. To not be so, any guidance I then received would be faulty.

 

[satellitedriver]

Thanks? Perhaps a thesaurus as a thank-you gift?

I've been 100% complete, truthful. To not be so, any guidance I then received would be faulty.

I may be still on your ignore list, so you may not get my gift.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/

 

[helenofcalifornia]

Sat, you crack me up!!

 

[tieguy]

WOW! Your local must be in your back pocket! As a steward I will object when I feel I have to, I will also pull the grievant out of the meeting if I have to and none of this needs to be approved by you!

No I'm not saying that I have my stewards trained to sit there quietly. From my experience different centers develop different relationships and working rules with their stewards. I'm strictly making the argument on what the legal language and contractual language appears to tell us.

I might work for you before I go into the office and after I'm done as a steward in the office, but do not for one moment think that you can tell me what to do, what to say or think that you can sit there and tell me to be quiet! It wont happen, I work for that member on behalf of the union at that point and you may have a big title like "manager" but I am your equal at that point!

And point two of my argument was that a smart steward knows when to flex and when to use quiet diplomacy. I've seen stewards that like to raise hell that have actually hurt their people more then they have helped them by pissing of management in cases where quiet diplomacy would have gotten better results.

 

[tieguy]

the problem may be there is no legal precedent for the objection. No courtroom process where the objection can interrupt the proceeding no point of order and the steward still works for the person he is objecting to. So in reality the witness part of the proceeding is your primary role. [/QUOTE]

Tie, the posts by Sober and Red do have some valid points. And Jon has some as well

I don't necessarily disagree.

If I, as the steward, take issue with something that is either being done or said, the meeting can be terminated, especially if the rights of the other employee are being violated (as in the case of the fishing trip.)That does not mean we just jump up and leave. But it does mean that the answers and communication from both I and the employee have stopped, until such a time as the wrongful treatment is stopped.

Or you raise the objection at that point and then grieve findings and decisions that were contrived as a result of actions taken that you objected to.

I know I work for UPS. And as such, regardless of the person that I am dealing with, I will approach the meeting with the respect that is due the office, both of the manager, and of the shop steward. That respect will be there until you cease to return that respect to me. Then I will still treat you with respect, because I intend to take the high road.

That point I have found is supported by NLRB decisions.

Did not always happen, but I tried. I did walk away from a conversation once where I said under my breath that the center manager was full of $uyt. He asked what I said, and since I pride myself in being truthful on all things, I told him "I said you are full of $uyt, sir". He did try to make something of that, but since it was said under my breath, and not in public or for the public to hear, it was dropped. But I did hate that he was able to push me to that point where I was lowered to his level.

Tie, there is ample precedence both legal and otherwise for me to tell you the meeting is over until such a time that I have had ample time to conduct my own investigation, or to collect information, or that I need to pull the employee out to converse privately, either with the company, or with the employee. In this case, at the beginning of the fishing trip, I would have done both. And there is legal precedence to do that.

If you're saying you as the shop steward have the authority to stop an investigory interview then I've never seen it done.

Jon If a person does not know that what he is doing is against the law, does intent have a bearing?

I understand what you were attempting to say to Tie.

Regardless of the standing living in a dream has at the center, I do not believe he had knowledge of the problem until management made him aware of it. And since he did not try to cover up any issues, the center team really does not have a case to fire him for any reason.

They do have every reason to keep him off the road until they get outside confirmation from the DOT that his license is now valid. At that time, they need to put him back on road. And my gut feeling is that is what will happen.

The only thing really wrong with this whole scene (living in a dream's drama excluded) is that the company really had no business fishing for information (if that is actually what happened). Everything else that has been done is pretty much been by the book.

d

 

[dannyboy]

If you're saying you as the shop steward have the authority to stop an investigory interview then I've never seen it done.

If the "investigation" goes the route of this case, yes, I would and could stop it. Until they actually are investigating something specific, all they are is fishing, and that is not allowed. The driver and myself would not respond further to any types of fishing by management. And you know that.

As far as findings and grieving it later, you are correct. Management has sole discretion to pretty much do as they please, and then we turn to the grievance procedure for justice.

And point two of my argument was that a smart steward knows when to flex and when to use quiet diplomacy. I've seen stewards that like to raise hell that have actually hurt their people more then they have helped them by pissing of management in cases where quiet diplomacy would have gotten better results.

I have seen this as well. I have even had to clean up a mess that other stewards have made by their actions, to which the company responded very harshly. And the driver is the one that pays the price.

d

 

[hondo]

IF LTD isn't terminated, what other repercussions will come up? I believe he is a " unqualified, part time cover driver ", a position that doesn't exist where I'm at. My guess is he won't be eligible to drive until the local "valid license/clean record" time period elapses, starting on the date PENNDOT reinstated his license. Does this sound right to anyone who has "unqualified, part time cover drivers" in their supplement?

 

[kingOFchester]

IF LTD isn't terminated, what other repercussions will come up? I believe he is a " unqualified, part time cover driver ", a position that doesn't exist where I'm at. My guess is he won't be eligible to drive until the local "valid license/clean record" time period elapses, starting on the date PENNDOT reinstated his license. Does this sound right to anyone who has "unqualified, part time cover drivers" in their supplement?

I think, HERE, they look at points, DUI'S and amunt of moving violations in a specific time frame. A suspension on your record alone would not DQ a driver. I may be wrong, but that is how I understand it.

 

[dannyboy]

Hondo

He has a valid license, what they are waiting on is pendot to verify that information to the company.

After that verification is received, then there are no other issues that would keep him from driving.

The job classification is not relevant when discussing the issue of the suspended license.

d

 

[tieguy]

If the "investigation" goes the route of this case, yes, I would and could stop it. Until they actually are investigating something specific, all they are is fishing, and that is not allowed. The driver and myself would not respond further to any types of fishing by management. And you know that.

I don't see it. We're not going to pull someone in and ask him to confess all his sins without an idea of what we're looking for.

In this scenario if living refuses to answer any questions then living is probably out on the street begging to get back in.