UPS Wrongly fired Driver for Union Activities but stays fired due to Facebook postings

[oldrps]

The judge probably looked at it a different way. The employee was fighting saying he was wrongfully terminated, thus the employee still felt he was employed. If the employee felt that they were still employed by UPS, they should be held to the Anti-Harassment Policy. If I were the employee, I would appeal.

 

[Mugarolla]

anyone have a link where one can read the ruling without subscribing to a 3rd party site? BRF is on my joint council and i can't believe she hasn't been removed yet...

 

[Mugarolla]

Exactly! I've seen people get fired for much worse than what this guy said but each and every one returned to work swiftly. Why? Bscause it's not a cardinal sin (at least in my supplement) to verbally let off steam. The judge said that UPS WOULD HAVE fired the guy for his comments. Ok...fine.....but in that case the guy WOULD HAVE had the opportunity to grieve it and likely be reinstated.

The whole ordeal reaks of corruption on the union's part and it's obvious the judge's decision was erroneous. I dont know the monetary cost of an appeal but it might very well be worth it.

You are somewhat correct.

I have seen some put back quickly because it was not a cardinal sin.

I have seen deadlocked decisions that have gone to arbitration and the arbitrator reinstated the grievant because it was not a cardinal sin.

I have also seen cases go to arbitration and the arbitrator ruled against the grievant.

Even arbitrators cannot agree if the cardinal sin clause is exclusive to the listed offenses or not.

I agree though, that the guy should have at least had a hearing on the "discharge" with the possibility of winning it.

 

[badsporh]

•Update•
This ALJ decision WAS appealed and IS still pending a decision from the Board in DC.

A couple answers and clarifications to things that have been posted in this thread:

•There is no evidence that RA made any inflammatory remarks about UPS during his actual employment there.

•The social media remarks that he did make were made more than 5 months after the State Panel had upheld his termination and the NLRB Regional Director) had denied his charges. He ultimately appealed the Regional Director's decision to the Board in DC and the General Counsel remanded the Regional Director's decision back to the Region. The Regional Director then approved his charges and the case proceeded to the ALJ.

•The ALJ's ruling DID include backpay for RA from discharge date up to day of hearing. Because the ALJ's ruling was appealed to the Board in DC, the backpay was not disbursed.

•Much has been made of RA's use of social media, and how it negatively effected his case. It should be noted that his use of social media facilitated his case getting the amount of attention that caught the interest of a very successful union democracy attorney who took his case on and is 99% of the reason that the case has made it as far as it has.

I know it's been 3 years since the last post in this thread, but this case is still kicking, and should RA prevail, it would be a win for all of us!

Here's a link to all of the case docs on the NLRB website:

NLRB | Public Website

 

[El Correcto]

•Update•
This ALJ decision WAS appealed and IS still pending a decision from the Board in DC.

A couple answers and clarifications to things that have been posted in this thread:

•There is no evidence that RA made any inflammatory remarks about UPS during his actual employment there.

•The social media remarks that he did make were made more than 5 months after the State Panel had upheld his termination and the NLRB Regional Director) had denied his charges. He ultimately appealed the Regional Director's decision to the Board in DC and the General Counsel remanded the Regional Director's decision back to the Region. The Regional Director then approved his charges and the case proceeded to the ALJ.

•The ALJ's ruling DID include backpay for RA from discharge date up to day of hearing. Because the ALJ's ruling was appealed to the Board in DC, the backpay was not disbursed.

•Much has been made of RA's use of social media, and how it negatively effected his case. It should be noted that his use of social media facilitated his case getting the amount of attention that caught the interest of a very successful union democracy attorney who took his case on and is 99% of the reason that the case has made it as far as it has.

I know it's been 3 years since the last post in this thread, but this case is still kicking, and should RA prevail, it would be a win for all of us!

Here's a link to all of the case docs on the NLRB website:

NLRB | Public Website

I’d laugh if he ends up with backpay. UPS would be pissed cutting a 400k+ check.

 

[104Feeder]

Thanks for the update and bravo to RA for keeping up the fight

 

[Integrity]

Thanks for the update and bravo to RA for keeping up the fight

I don’t approve of his ranting. Ranting, griping and complaining in not usually a protected activity however in this case I can understand his frustrations that most likely contributed to the rant.I think the company should just give him his job back a move on.

 

[104Feeder]

I don’t approve of his ranting. Ranting, griping and complaining in not usually a protected activity however in this case I can understand his frustrations that most likely contributed to the rant.I think the company should just give him his job back a move on.

The update said the remarks were made 5 months after the Panel upheld his termination, so he was already fired. If the individuals want to pursue slander that would seem the most that he should face. It isn't something UPS would fire us for anyway as the ALJ said, there needs to be a warning letter in place. Obviously I would advise anyone terminated to hold off until all appeals are exhausted but I think the ALJ erred here.

 

[badsporh]

Currently the NLRB (the Board) in DC is attempting to use RA's case to set new precedent by overturning existing precedent that has allowed his case to progress as far as it has.

RA's case has been able to get to this point in part because of something called the Babcock and Wilcox review standard.

Simply put, this standard or precedent allows cases brought before the Board to not be deferred to the grievance machinery when there is a likelihood that those who are supposed to be on the union member's side (the union representatives or State Panel members) are actually adversarial to the member or political enemies of the member.

The previous standard (that was overturned in favor of Babcock in 2014) was the Spielberg review standard. The Board is attempting to go back to this standard and apply it retroactively to RA's case. The Spielberg standard did not care if the State Panel was made up of political enemies, thus meaning if you lost at State Panel the NLRB would consider that your 'bite at the apple' and consider your case to be deferred or over.

If the Board is successful in using RA's case to change this standard, the ALJ's decision will be vacated and the Board will attempt to declare RA's case null and void.

UPS's legal counsel and the US Chamber of Commerce have written briefs in favor of returning to the Spielberg review.

The Association for Union Democracy and RA's legal counsel have written briefs in favor of keeping the Babcock and Wilcox review standard.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I don’t approve of his ranting. Ranting, griping and complaining in not usually a protected activity however in this case I can understand his frustrations that most likely contributed to the rant.I think the company should just give him his job back a move on.

That would justify his behavior and would open the doors to others to follow suit.

 

[badsporh]

If anybody is wondering why the NLRB in DC seemed to be an advocate for RA up to and including the whole two week trial against UPS, but subsequently has taken on the position as an advocate for UPS, the answer is pretty simple.
The Board has changed from the last Presidential administration to this one.

Under the previous administration the Boards lead attorney (the General Counsel) was a pro-labor Democrat. Under the current administration the General Counsel is now a pro-employer attorney who has fought his entire career against unions and rank and file members.
Under the previous administration the five person Board was made up of pro-union members like Lauren McFerran and Mark Gaston Pierce. Under the current Presidential administration the Board as of today is operating with only 3 of 5 members, all of who are career corporate attorneys who have spent their careers fighting against working men and women.
This has resulted in the Board flip flopping on many cases like RA's.

 

[Rabrown]

I’d laugh if he ends up with backpay. UPS would be pissed cutting a 400k+ check.

Unfortunately law states any income or other compensation during this time would cause UPS actual amount to pay be reduced dollar to dollar

 

[El Correcto]

Unfortunately law states any income or other compensation during this time would cause UPS actual amount to pay be reduced dollar to dollar

Reduced? They should be paying interest on that money.

 

[104Feeder]

If anybody is wondering why the NLRB in DC seemed to be an advocate for RA up to and including the whole two week trial against UPS, but subsequently has taken on the position as an advocate for UPS, the answer is pretty simple.
The Board has changed from the last Presidential administration to this one.

Under the previous administration the Boards lead attorney (the General Counsel) was a pro-labor Democrat. Under the current administration the General Counsel is now a pro-employer attorney who has fought his entire career against unions and rank and file members.
Under the previous administration the five person Board was made up of pro-union members like Lauren McFerran and Mark Gaston Pierce. Under the current Presidential administration the Board as of today is operating with only 3 of 5 members, all of who are career corporate attorneys who have spent their careers fighting against working men and women.
This has resulted in the Board flip flopping on many cases like RA's.

Yes elections have consequences and any Teamster who voted for Trump shot themselves in both feet.....with a shotgun.
What a mess for RA.

 

[El Correcto]

Yes elections have consequences and any Teamster who voted for Trump shot themselves in both feet.....with a shotgun.
What a mess for RA.

Yes because losing our healthcare and having a federal taxe on 30%+ of our income is a way better alternative. I’d rather the union collapse and me be a homeless vagabond than cast my ballot for a democrat.

 

[badsporh]

It's true.
All backpay is reduced dollar for dollar by any monies earned in the interim.

But this is not about money. It's about RA walking back through the doors and resuming his career. It would be a tremendous win for union advocates and activists, and right now, the labor movement could surely use a win.

 

[badsporh]

Yes because losing our healthcare and having a federal taxe on 30%+ of our income is a way better alternative. I’d rather the union collapse and me be a homeless vagabond than cast my ballot for a democrat.

Medicare for all is about finally having freedom to live our lives not having to worry about losing our right to healthcare just for exercising our first amendment rights.

UPS often fires union troublemakers or production problems knowing that it most likely won't stick. But what they also know is that during the time they're fired, they will lose their healthcare, at least temporarily.

This is a tremendous axe to wield over employees.

Healthcare being tied to employment also inhibits our ability to strike. Which inhibits our ability to secure the best contracts for the rank and file.

If Medicare for all is instituted, the monies in our compensation package that goes towards paying for our current company or union provided healthcare, will instead appear in our paycheck. I'll take that please.

Added side benefit, you will never have to hear of a loved one, family member, or a friend putting off needed healthcare because they simply can't afford it. That'd sure be nice.

 

[El Correcto]

Medicare for all is about finally having freedom to live our lives not having to worry about losing our right to healthcare just for exercising our first amendment rights.

UPS often fires union troublemakers or production problems knowing that it most likely won't stick. But what they also know is that during the time they're fired, they will lose their healthcare, at least temporarily.

This is a tremendous axe to wield over employees.

Healthcare being tied to employment also inhibits our ability to strike. Which inhibits our ability to secure the best contracts for the rank and file.

If Medicare for all is instituted, the monies in our compensation package that goes towards paying for our current company or union provided healthcare, will instead appear in our paycheck. I'll take that please.

Added side benefit, you will never have to hear of a loved one, family member, or a friend putting off needed healthcare because they simply can't afford it. That'd sure be nice.

I don’t want to pay more for less.
Medicare for all will drain my wallet and not be nearly as good coverage. It will have lasting effects on the global healthcare market and America’s healthcare. We do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to drug development that the entire world leeches off of with price controls to maintain their failing systems.

medicare for all is a terrible idea.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Yes elections have consequences and any Teamster who voted for Trump shot themselves in both feet.....with a shotgun.
What a mess for RA.

If anybody is wondering why the NLRB in DC seemed to be an advocate for RA up to and including the whole two week trial against UPS, but subsequently has taken on the position as an advocate for UPS, the answer is pretty simple.
The Board has changed from the last Presidential administration to this one.

Under the previous administration the Boards lead attorney (the General Counsel) was a pro-labor Democrat. Under the current administration the General Counsel is now a pro-employer attorney who has fought his entire career against unions and rank and file members.
Under the previous administration the five person Board was made up of pro-union members like Lauren McFerran and Mark Gaston Pierce. Under the current Presidential administration the Board as of today is operating with only 3 of 5 members, all of who are career corporate attorneys who have spent their careers fighting against working men and women.
This has resulted in the Board flip flopping on many cases like RA's.

Seems kind of whacky (or just convenient?) to blame a National election on RA’s situation knowing that the union threw him under the bus before the NLRB was even involved.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Seems kind of whacky (or just convenient?) to blame a National election on RA’s situation knowing that the union threw him under the bus before the NLRB was even involved.

Sounds like he was probably perceived as a jerk and a sloth to both UPS and the Teamsters.