Question about 22.3 Jobs

[22.34life]

I got bump from another 22.3 employee,he was from another hub,i have 20 yrs exp he had 11 yrs exp,just cause he had his 22.3 job before me,also came from a hub thats 3times the size of our hub..he wasnt qfy to do that job...Somehow union let them get away with it...All the years I have worked at ups,Company sentry ruled!Not anymore..Now i'm a20 yrs newhire..So all year I been covering vacation weeks too stay on the midnight shift,Now ups mang.say I cant do that.So this 20yr UPSer say watch out can happen to you next....I think Union become weak,and letting ups walk all over them....

Not sure about the coming from another building part but after you go combo all your part time years dont mean anything when dealing with another combo.everything will be decided by 22.3 senority not company senority.the same thing happens with drivers and feeders.if you switched to package car driver you would be in a new classafication and you would go to the bottom of the list.When a package car driver goes to feeders same thing applies.This is not something new,i am suprised your a 20 yr guy and didnt know this.

 

[JonFrum]

Not sure about the coming from another building part but after you go combo all your part time years dont mean anything when dealing with another combo.everything will be decided by 22.3 senority not company senority.the same thing happens with drivers and feeders.if you switched to package car driver you would be in a new classafication and you would go to the bottom of the list.When a package car driver goes to feeders same thing applies.This is not something new,i am suprised your a 20 yr guy and didnt know this.

This may be true under your Supplement, but not under most other Supplements.

 

[JonFrum]

Here's how its supposed to work, as decided by the lawsuit settlement in 1999....all new 22.3 jobs were to be offered to existing p/t employees first, during the annual ( now semi-annual ) bid process anyone could bid on them.
Should someone leave a 22.3 job, for whatever reason, after the bid then that open job shall be awarded to a qualified p/t.
Always check your local supplement when in doubt.

What lawsuit settlement in 1999?

There was the Arbitrator's Decision in February 2000, which found UPS violated the Contract and ordered UPS to create the 22.3 jobs and make all successful 22.3 bidders whole; and there was the subsequent First Year Agreement and Second Year Agreement between the Teamsters and UPS on how the jobs would be created and back pay calculated.

No mention of bidding. That was decided differently by each local or regional group. Some did it right, others screwed the part-timers and 22.3 bidders royally.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Not sure about the coming from another building part but after you go combo all your part time years dont mean anything when dealing with another combo.everything will be decided by 22.3 senority not company senority.the same thing happens with drivers and feeders.if you switched to package car driver you would be in a new classafication and you would go to the bottom of the list.When a package car driver goes to feeders same thing applies.This is not something new,i am suprised your a 20 yr guy and didnt know this.

In New England, FT seniority is FT seniority. There are no classification seniority lists. A 20 year package driver, if qualified feeder, can bump the 19 year feeder driver, even if the package driver has not driven in the other classification. Likewise, a 20 year package driver can bump a 19 year FT inside employee.

 

[22.34life]

In New England, FT seniority is FT seniority. There are no classification seniority lists. A 20 year package driver, if qualified feeder, can bump the 19 year feeder driver, even if the package driver has not driven in the other classification. Likewise, a 20 year package driver can bump a 19 year FT inside employee.

My mistake i did not know that this was supplement language,i thought this was master language.In texas everthing is done by classification,package car,feeder,article 22.3

 

[Breezer66]

supplement language you sound like them....

 

[Babagounj]

That settlement about 22.3 jobs was between the company & TDU.
Hoffa & the International avoided any involvement in the case. Frankly since it was a contract sign by Carey, Hoffa wanted nothing to do with it. Hoffa did jump onboard the day the decision was announced.
The settlement did allow for year 1 p/t to gain seniority, retro to 1998 along with back pay { he who worked the least got the most } and a pass on any progression.

 

[Guy Smiley]

What lawsuit settlement in 1999?

There was the Arbitrator's Decision in February 2000, which found UPS violated the Contract and ordered UPS to create the 22.3 jobs and make all successful 22.3 bidders whole; and there was the subsequent First Year Agreement and Second Year Agreement between the Teamsters and UPS on how the jobs would be created and back pay calculated.

No mention of bidding. That was decided differently by each local or regional group. Some did it right, others screwed the part-timers and 22.3 bidders royally.

Mostly agreed, except for the end. The union I.B.T. and or T.D.U. screw their membership. In fact, this issue brings to light how totally ineffective/useless the union is in everything thrown their way except for stealing dues money from their membership and trying to hide the fact they do so. Personally, I would rather have someone educated (like a lawyer) than the agents who speak with double negatives representing me.

 

[JonFrum]

FOR THE RECORD:

The Arbitrator's Decision

The First Year Agreement

The Second Year Agreement

 

[Cezanne]

Mostly agreed, except for the end. The union I.B.T. and or T.D.U. screw their membership. In fact, this issue brings to light how totally ineffective/useless the union is in everything thrown their way except for stealing dues money from their membership and trying to hide the fact they do so. Personally, I would rather have someone educated (like a lawyer) than the agents who speak with double negatives representing me.

Obviously you have never spoken with an attorney and they charge 250 dollars a hour for the opportunity..Choose wisely....

 

[FAVREFAN]

Regardless of any arbitrators decisions or contract print......the company is doing whatever the hell it wants to do across the whole country with 22.3 jobs. They have turned our contract into toilet paper and the union is standing there watching them.

 

[Guy Smiley]

Regardless of any arbitrators decisions or contract print......the company is doing whatever the hell it wants to do across the whole country with 22.3 jobs. They have turned our contract into toilet paper and the union is standing there watching them.

Totally agreed. But I would save $$$542 a year by hiring a lawyer!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[holly0693]

Can you tell me where in the contract it says you are not allowed to do split shifts? I've looked and I can't find it.

 

[JonFrum]

Can you tell me where in the contract it says you are not allowed to do split shifts? I've looked and I can't find it.

If one or both segments of your Article 22.3 job is Air Driving:

ARTICLE 40. AIR OPERATION
Section 1 - Air Drivers
(b) The workday for Air Drivers shall be as follows:
(3) Combinations which require more than a two (2) hour gap between jobs will normally not be used unless mutually agreed to by the Local Union and the Employer.

Also check your Supplement for language that forbids split shifts. Just remember that if you have such language, it will only apply to Inside-Inside work, as the Air Article superseeds the Supplement on air issues.

If you are laid off, then that's a completely different situation. You will have to settle for whatever your Supplemental language says about your right to work. Split shifts may be all the language entitles you to.

 

[JonFrum]

Obviously you have never spoken with an attorney and they charge 250 dollars a hour for the opportunity..Choose wisely....

Depends. Some lawyers charge less, some a lot more.

Our current lawyer, James P. Hoffa, charged us $383,132 in 2009.

Many other Teamster officials function as our lawyers, even if they aren't actual Members of the Bar, and charge us big bucks anyway.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128114949/http://tdu.org/2009salaryreport

 

[Guy Smiley]

I have a question. I have been reading about the 22.3 jobs not being filled. Are they get rid (laying off) of the 22.3 job or are the employees retiring? And if they are laying off, does the employee get to go back driving? I can't see how they can just lay a person off when there are people with less seniority still employed driving.

Both the pro-Hoffa locals and company management are seeing to it that the jobs get eliminated. The 22.3's are dropping like the Washington Capitals around here. Our hack business agent newest idea is to persuade senior guys who have been out on comp or disability to take a 22.3 position. Problem is that the job is vacated because of a bump or they don't stay on it. Then the labor manager ensures the job is eliminated come bid time because it's "vacated". Sounds like collusion to me. Then the work gets filled by part-timers. Oh! wait a minute, I thought part time America won't work.....

 

[JonFrum]

Does anyone know if this 2002 Memorandum of Understanding quoted below is still in force? It doesn't seen to have an expiration date on it so I assume it is.

Anyone know if UPS domestic volume ever declined by 2% or more, and if so, during what intervals?

The Article 22.3 sentence, "If there is a reduction in volume causing layoffs, the Employer's obligation under this section shall be null and void," was deleted from the Contract in 2002. But the MOU was added. So it appears UPS still has the right to leave vacated Article 22.3 jobs unfilled if volume dropped at least 2% from one year to the next.

Memorandum of Understanding
Teamsters United Parcel Service Negotiating Committee (Union)and United Parcel Service (UPS) agree to the following interpretation of Article 22, Section 3 as part of the final settlement of the National Master Agreement. The parties agree that if the volume figures included in the Employer’s 10 -K annual filing with the Securities Exchange Commission establish that the domestic volume in the reporting year was two percent (2%) less in tota1 (domestic ground and air) than the prior reporting year, the Employer shall have the right not to fill vacancies resulting from employees leaving Article 22.3 jobs.

The parties further agree that the total volume reported for the 2002 calendar year shall not be used as a basis for the comparison set forth above. Accordingly, the S.E.C. filing covering calendar 2003 shall be the basis for determining the Employer’s obligation to fill vacancies in 2004. Thereafter, the comparison shall be based upon the S.E.C. filing covering the previous reporting year.

The parties further agree that nothing in this MOU shall reduce the Employer's obligation to maintain the total number of full -time jobs created under Article 22.3 of the 1997-2002 Agreement and the current Agreement. The Employer remains obligated to fill vacancies once the domestic volume has increased to the point that the difference between the current volume and the volume for the reporting year that triggered the suspension of the Employer's obligation to fill vacancies is reduced to less than a two percent (2%) decline.

hall Co-Chair, Teamsters United Parcel Service National Negotiating Committee
James Maloney, Vice-President Labor Relations United Parcel Service, Inc.

 

[brownIEman]

Does anyone know if this 2002 Memorandum of Understanding quoted below is still in force? It doesn't seen to have an expiration date on it so I assume it is.

Anyone know if UPS domestic volume ever declined by 2% or more, and if so, during what intervals?

The Article 22.3 sentence, "If there is a reduction in volume causing layoffs, the Employer's obligation under this section shall be null and void," was deleted from the Contract in 2002. But the MOU was added. So it appears UPS still has the right to leave vacated Article 22.3 jobs unfilled if volume dropped at least 2% from one year to the next.

​

According to the the SEC filing form 10-K, the daily average domestic volume for 2009 was 13,050. 2008 it was 13,576, 2007 it was 13,857. That is a drop of just barely over 2% from 2007 to 2008, and a drop of another 3.8% from '08 to '09. Not sure if '07 was a drop from '06 or not. If not, we would have to get back above 13579 daily volume for the requirement for UPS to refill the 22.3's. If I read this MOU correctly.

BTW, the volume numbers are in thousands as per the form.​

 

[Dark_Team_135]

Does anyone know if this 2002 Memorandum of Understanding quoted below is still in force? It doesn't seen to have an expiration date on it so I assume it is.

Anyone know if UPS domestic volume ever declined by 2% or more, and if so, during what intervals?

The Article 22.3 sentence, "If there is a reduction in volume causing layoffs, the Employer's obligation under this section shall be null and void," was deleted from the Contract in 2002. But the MOU was added. So it appears UPS still has the right to leave vacated Article 22.3 jobs unfilled if volume dropped at least 2% from one year to the next.

​

That MOU shouldn't have survived the next contract (December 2007 to July 2013) unless there was a new one negotiated for that period. I believe we would win an arbitration on the subject since the sentence "If there is a reduction in volume causing layoffs, the Employer's obligation under this section shall be null and void" was removed and there was no MOU added for the current contract (THAT I KNOW OF).​

 

[Dark_Team_135]

OK I found and compiled this volume information for each year starting in 2003:

Average Daily Domestic Package Volume (in thousands):
2003 - 12,371 2004 - 12,780 (Increase of 3.3% 2003 to 2004)
2004 - 12,780 2005 - 13,218 (Increase of 3.4% 2004 to 2005)
2005 - 13,218 2006 - 13,797 (Increase of 4.4% 2005 to 2006)
2006 - 13,797 2007 - 13,857 (Increase of 0.4% 2006 to 2007)
2007 - 13,857 2008 - 13,576 (Decrease of 2.0% 2007 to 2008)
2008 - 13,576 2009 - 13,050 (Decrease of 3.9% 2008 to 2009)