Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Inthegame" data-source="post: 2503055" data-attributes="member: 37112">While I agree the postings were indeed stupid, I also question the objectivity of this ALJ&#039;s findings.First oddity is the ALJ appling UPS&#039;s policy that specifically states; &quot;In order to remain a positive work environment, all employees must treat each other with courtesy...&quot; to a non-employee? RA was not an employee of UPS in May of 2015 (when the Facebook postings took place), as the panel upheld his termination and ruled against him in Jan 2015, and yet the ALJ treats him as if he were. Also disturbing is the ALJ&#039;s initial statement (first page of Decision) &quot;that based on evidence of misconduct by RA that Respondent (UPS) acquired after RA&#039;s discharge, I have also found that RA is not entitled to reinstatement...&quot;So now RA, who is not an employee of UPS in May of 2015, remains under UPS&#039;s very subjectively enforced misconduct policy?&nbsp;Additionally from the ALJ&#039;s initial statement (first page of Decision) &quot;...On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging Party and Respondent, I make the following...&quot;In the legal world, how does the ALJ allow demeanor to trump evidence?This case needs to be appealed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Inthegame, post: 2503055, member: 37112"] While I agree the postings were indeed stupid, I also question the objectivity of this ALJ's findings. First oddity is the ALJ appling UPS's policy that specifically states; "In order to remain a positive work environment, all[B][U] employees[/U][/B] must treat each other with courtesy..." to a non-employee? RA was not an employee of UPS in May of 2015 (when the Facebook postings took place), as the panel upheld his termination and ruled against him in Jan 2015, and yet the ALJ treats him as if he were. Also disturbing is the ALJ's initial statement (first page of Decision) "that based on evidence of [B][U]misconduct[/U][/B] by RA that Respondent (UPS) acquired [U]after[/U] RA's discharge, I have also found that RA is not entitled to reinstatement..." So now RA, who is not an employee of UPS in May of 2015, remains under UPS's very subjectively enforced misconduct policy? Additionally from the ALJ's initial statement (first page of Decision) "...On the entire record, including [B][U]my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses[/U][/B], and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging Party and Respondent, I make the following..." In the legal world, how does the ALJ allow demeanor to trump evidence? This case needs to be appealed. [/QUOTE]

Verification