TSB
Yeah, I'm a road hog
Well hopefully they'll be categorized as non-rehireable and they won't be seen from again.
PVDs and the contract
- Thread starter 35years
- Start date
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Article 32 of the NMA: Subcontracting:
For these reasons I find that the Union did not prove by preponderant evidence that the Company violated Article 32 of the NMA by employing PVDs in Local 804’s jurisdiction during peak season in 2019.
Article 26, Section (a) of the NMA: Prohibition on Forcing Package Car Drivers to Use their Personal Vehicles:
The bargaining history evidence does not suffice to override what I find to be the straightforward language of Article 26, Section 1(a), broadly prohibiting the Company from forcing any package car drivers to use their personal vehicle to deliver packages. Accordingly, I find that the Union demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that by requiring PVDs, during the 2019 peak season and within Local 804’s jurisdiction to use their personal vehicles, the Company violated Article 26, Section 1
AWARD
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Union proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Company violated Article 26, Section 1(a) of the NMA by requiring the PVDs it employed in Local 804’s jurisdiction during the 2019 peak season to use their personal vehicles to deliver packages. I further find that the Union has not proved by preponderant evidence that the Company violated Article 32 of the NMA or Articles 2, 13, 25, and 36 of the Local 804 Supplement. Accordingly, the grievance is granted in part and denied in part.
Pursuant to the parties joint request, this decision does not address the issue of remedy. Rather, the matter is remanded to the parties to negotiate a resolution. Jurisdiction is retained for a reasonable period of time to address the issue of remedy should the parties fail to reach a resolution.
I don’t think you fully understand what the ruling means 804 lost just as many of their complaints as they won. Many of their complaints were based just on their own supplements. The one they did win pertains to the fact of the company “forcing” drivers to use their own vehicles. Because some of the literature the company was using required PVDs in 2019 to use their vehicles So now the company says PVDs are drivers and they do not force them to use their own vehicles. It’s BS of course, so the case will continue.
The hoopla around this arbitration case was overblown. Was it a win? Sure just not what they said or most people thought.
Lots of grievances filed in my local this year based on extra work and loss of hours. There still will be other panel decisions and probably more arbitrations.
Last edited:
Yolo
Well-Known Member
TBF we have several RPCDs that do this too.
PT Car Washer
Well-Known Member
Which is why we have air drivers running ground routes in all months.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
....and when air drivers forward ground packages, I get paid time and a half for that time too.
Commercial Inside Release
Well-Known Member
We get it! You hate dues paying air drivers, that are just working as directed. A lot of full time ground drivers like having them around, so there is someone there to run their route when they choose to skip work. We all know what management is like when they have no one to cover a route. They call & text more than a crazed stalker.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
How do you take that from what I posted?
Commercial Inside Release
Well-Known Member
When you grieve an air driver helping out ground, the higher up managers usually ban all of them from working ground as needed. Paying top rate is not a big deal, since the air drivers are usually able to cover routes just fine. Paying you and the penalties, plus hassle are a deal killer though.
Now look who is only thinking about themself... You are Bubble!
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
It’s nothing against you, those jobs are supposed to go to full-time employees if it’s an occasional issue it’s really not a problem we are talking about the continual misuse of air drivers to do package car routes and ground. That is what the grievance process is for its not for me or another person to make money it’s for the company to follow the contractual obligation they have.
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
You were way too polite @Thebrownblob, because @Commercial Inside Release and @PT Car Washer already know all of that.
That's why they adopt the Company narratives, like they "are dues paying members and not supervisors", or that it is the result of "poor attendance by package car drivers" and those who grieve are greedy and selfish, etc.
The truth is they don't care about the package operation and that it is barebones staffed by design and that these air drivers are used daily in many cases as the Company safety net when nobody grieves.
But hey, they get to sit on the fence and have the best of both worlds, get paid top scale without doing a 4 year progression, as the unborn package car drivers wait in part-time purgatory (or on the street).
Took me almost 8 years of part time work (including as an air driver) for my opportunity, but today in most areas it is taking a much shorter time to be called up.
So if @Commercial Inside Release and @PT Car Washer wants to deliver ground, they could easily get in the game (if they could qualify?).
These guys instead anxiously assist the Company in violating the contract while desperately looking for validation from all of us, instead of just saying "I am working as directed".
I never once told an air driver to tell management no when asked to forward ground, never.
They (@Commercial Inside Release and @PT Car Washer) continually spew these flimsy arguments because they fear their gravy train will dry up and hope we will all just back off and not grieve.
....but somehow I am the one who is "only thinking of myself", right??? SMH
Last edited:
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Our path to driving a similar, when it comes to contractual issues I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, (mostly out of their ignorance of contractual issues and the contract in general) but most of the time people only think about their self. We’ve been fighting for the creation of livable full-time jobs for a long time the company would love nothing more than to step all over that, so when we allow the company to break the contract it may help one person but it hurts hundreds behind you that we don’t even know yet. Moreover never once have I felt being personally attacked when someone used the contract appropriately even if I got bumped.
Commercial Inside Release
Well-Known Member
@PT Car Washer I believe Bubble nuts has taken a liking to you. He stalks you kinda hard, even in a thread about PVDs.
Security!
Security!
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Nope, have more often than not been on the same side of many discussions with @PT Car Washer .
....we just don't agree on this air driver/ground delivery issue.
Aside from his denial on this issue, I respect most of the rest of what he says.
You need to accept, as a 5 month member of this site, that you don't really have a very good frame of reference to make that comment?
Either way, is that all you got???
Commercial Inside Release
Well-Known Member
Not really. You see, I've watched you cherry pick the contract to support your internet battles for years. I know you will just argue endlessly, and your little gang will back you up... And that's alright, because I have to work this week covering 12hr ground routes, because the weather is getting bad, and too many of the ground guys want another Covid vacation, before they do away with the leave.
Thebrownblob
Well-Known Member
Bubblehead and I Have not seen Eye 2 Eye on all issues. But if you’re referring to some “gang” he has I think you mean “union members” and I’ll stand with him and all of them when they’re fighting for what the contract says. and I would do the same for you, in this instance you are on the wrong side of the contract. But even more than that you are allowing management to use and abuse you. Why not just go full-time then you’ll be guaranteed the hours, and pay and a pension. You’re selling yourself short. They obviously need more drivers.
PASinterference
Yes, I know I'm working late.
Trade nothing...it was accepted in the last administration. We gain nothing in letting ups use them.
What'dyabringmetoday???
Well-Known Member
Don't pay attention- management trouble maker.
PASinterference
Yes, I know I'm working late.
Sad thing is he's retired and can't let go.
Superteeth2478
Well-Known Member
I had much the same backlash from RPCDs getting angry that I was filing when they worked off the clock. They didn't seem to realize that the issue was that as a result of them working off the clock they were, first off, taking away work from part-timers that actually wanted to work but instead were sent home while drivers working for free did their work. It's just as bad as a supervisor working, because the end result is the same.
On top of that the bigger problem it created is that the company didn't need to create as many driving positions as they would otherwise, hence preventing advancement for many part-time employees who were looking to go full-time. It's amazing that drivers working off the clock often don't seem to realize the simple argument that if 8 of them work through their lunch off the clock, that's quite literally destroying one full-time job opportunity.
It's not about having a "little gang to back you up", it's about the contract language and the reasons the language exists in the first place. It's not as simple as "the language is just there". There's a reason the union negotiates certain language into the contract. Overall when the contract is not adhered to it hurts all union members, period.
Similar threads
