Warning Letter

[Mugarolla]

It was settled out of a Steward's grievance. It did not affect just one employee but the whole building.

So this means that they have to give a verbal warning first on ANY infraction besides a cardinal sin?

If so, I'll bet this is the only local with that policy. I know they can give a verbal first, and I have got many reduced from a warning letter to a verbal, but to be forced to give a verbal first on anything is a monumental win.

 

[Gimme Danger]

Just cause calls for progressive discipline. My local argues that a verbal is needed before a written warning, quite successfully.
The old BA we fired didn't see it that way...

 

[BigUnionGuy]

They don't need to give a verbal warning before giving a written warning letter. For any infraction, except attendance, they can go straight to a warning letter.

Progressive discipline is NOT verbal warning, warning letter, suspension, discharge.

Progressive discipline IS warning letter, suspension, discharge.

Um....

It's a "gray" area.

We would like to keep it that way.

This has been my experience as well.

That's not every local's practice.

Sometimes.... you can try and help too much.

They send ours certified

You need to change that.

It just adds to the divorce total.



-Bug-

 

[IVE GOTTA PACKAGE 4U]

Um....

It's a "gray" area.

We would like to keep it that way.







Sometimes.... you can try and help too much.





You need to change that.

It just adds to the divorce total.



-Bug-

That's the way it always been. Last time I got one, I called off sick. Sip says what's wrong. I said some D* sent me a warning letter and I need to go pick it up at the post office.

 

[10 point]

So this means that they have to give a verbal warning first on ANY infraction besides a cardinal sin?

If so, I'll bet this is the only local with that policy. I know they can give a verbal first, and I have got many reduced from a warning letter to a verbal, but to be forced to give a verbal first on anything is a monumental win.

It's a different local than ours and I only know of it being in one building...can't speak for the rest of them in that local.

 

[10 point]

So this means that they have to give a verbal warning first on ANY infraction besides a cardinal sin?

If so, I'll bet this is the only local with that policy. I know they can give a verbal first, and I have got many reduced from a warning letter to a verbal, but to be forced to give a verbal first on anything is a monumental win.

Let me back up and separate the two issues.
In our building the co has to hand the warning ltr to the hourly with the steward present. No mail order ltrs work.

In another local (1 building that I know of) progressive discipline starts with a verbal with cardinal restrictions and prob minus accidents I going to hypothetically assert.

 

[Dr.Brownz]

Grieve all warning letters every time to show their was some record of protest and to add another perspective to the record so when the company decides "Preloader John Doe is a dumb butt lets fire him" there is something in the records to counter all the company BS when the case goes to panel. Documentation is everything.

Here they have to give a verbal warning before a warning letter.

 

[twoweeled]

They don't need to give a verbal warning before giving a written warning letter. For any infraction, except attendance, they can go straight to a warning letter.

Progressive discipline is NOT verbal warning, warning letter, suspension, discharge.

Progressive discipline IS warning letter, suspension, discharge.

That being said, grieve the warning letter, but do not base it on not receiving a verbal first. They don't have to.

Damn! No verbal needed? Out west where the pretty girls are, they used to verbal, he said/I said warning, suspension, discharge. When I left, they were just started at warning letter. That was being grieved, as not following proper progression, or out of progression. I don't know what is happening now. Company was just making up their own rules when I left. Pushing everything.
But 3 steps isn't much. Sorry to hear that.

 

[twoweeled]

This has been my experience as well.
What I will add is to always take notes, with the date, who's in the room, details of the infraction, what was said by all parties, and the company's disposition including the contractual article sited.
By doing so, sometimes you can prove inconsistencies and assist your BA in the grievance process.

Super good advice and super important. Along with a witness.
ALWAYS TAKE NOTES, everytime. you'll see them take notice when you (calmly) get a sheet of paper out, write the date, time and who's in the room. along with Bubblehead's ideas of violations. Then take notes of key points. They start to watch what they say. It's sorta comical at times.

 

[twoweeled]

Grieve all warning letters every time to show their was some record of protest and to add another perspective to the record so when the company decides "Preloader John Doe is a dumb butt lets fire him" there is something in the records to counter all the company BS when the case goes to panel. Documentation is everything.

Here they have to give a verbal warning before a warning letter.

Absolutely. I used to grieve anything I could reach for. The Union didn't like it, because there were issues which didn't require grievance. I just wanted a trail in case of arbitration. I never looked to grievances as win or lose. I looked at grievances as documentation received. Also held the union on the hook in certain instances, because this made them aware of issues. I didn't expect a grievance hearing every time, just stamp the grievance and put it in my file. Much like the company does to our butts.
If there's anything we should learn from management, it's to document, document and document. When in doubt - watch them!
But that was just me.

 

[twoweeled]

I had to join a meeting today that a pre-loader was written up for not following the correct loading methods. They only had two load audit to show and he does not remember ever having the audits gone over with him. From what I understand there's no documentation showing that he received a verbal warning in the write up they are stating that they will be sending out a warning letter. Should we file a grievance whenever he receives the warning letter?

Personally, I appreciate you trying to inform yourself and do the best you can. Most of us didn't know crap in the beginning. Plum got run over in the beginning. But you either learn, or get chewed up and spit out.

 

[Inthegame]

Super good advice and super important. Along with a witness.
ALWAYS TAKE NOTES, everytime. you'll see them take notice when you (calmly) get a sheet of paper out, write the date, time and who's in the room. along with Bubblehead's ideas of violations. Then take notes of key points. They start to watch what they say. It's sorta comical at times.

Steward seminar 101. The written word referred to in future hearings carries weight. The unwritten anecdotal reference is worthless.

 

[Mugarolla]

Damn! No verbal needed? Out west where the pretty girls are, they used to verbal, he said/I said warning, suspension, discharge. When I left, they were just started at warning letter. That was being grieved, as not following proper progression, or out of progression. I don't know what is happening now. Company was just making up their own rules when I left. Pushing everything.
But 3 steps isn't much. Sorry to hear that.

Yup. Nothing in the contract that says they have to give a verbal first, before a written.

3 steps should actually be plenty. Warning letters are only good for 9 months. Get caught with your bulkhead door open and get a warning letter, just don't do it again within 9 months. If you get caught again a year later, the progressive discipline starts all over. You just get a warning letter again.

You have to be pretty stupid to violate some methods, receive a warning letter for it, and do the same thing again shortly after to open yourself up for a suspension and then to do it again within that 9 month time frame to open yourself up for a discharge.

I know there are exceptions and certain things out of your control, which is why every warning letter should be grieved.

Been here over 30 years, a steward for over 28 years, and have yet to see anyone terminated under progressive discipline.

 

[twoweeled]

Um....

It's a "gray" area.

We would like to keep it that way.

-Bug-

Took me awhile to accept that chest move, of wanting certain points to remain in a gray area - but I eventually capitulated. I can't recall the specific incidents, but it really seemed neither side wanted clarity. Oooookay!

 

[twoweeled]

Yup. Nothing in the contract that says they have to give a verbal first, before a written.

3 steps should actually be plenty. Warning letters are only good for 9 months. Get caught with your bulkhead door open and get a warning letter, just don't do it again within 9 months. If you get caught again a year later, the progressive discipline starts all over. You just get a warning letter again.

You have to be pretty stupid to violate some methods, receive a warning letter for it, and do the same thing again shortly after to open yourself up for a suspension and then to do it again within that 9 month time frame to open yourself up for a discharge.

I know there are exceptions and certain things out of your control, which is why every warning letter should be grieved.

Been here over 30 years, a steward for over 28 years, and have yet to see anyone terminated under progressive discipline.

I don't know how it is back at the ranch now (been gone a year)
but we were still holding to the he said/I said. The company outta the blue started just skipping it, but the local was still holding to he said/I said. Maybe hanging onto "past practice"?
The thought was if it ever did reach discharge and arbitration, we would fight it then, as discipline was out of progression. I don't know if that scenario ever materialized.

 

[Mugarolla]

I don't know how it is back at the ranch now (been gone a year)
but we were still holding to the he said/I said. The company outta the blue started just skipping it, but the local was still holding to he said/I said. Maybe hanging onto "past practice"?
The thought was if it ever did reach discharge and arbitration, we would fight it then, as discipline was out of progression. I don't know if that scenario ever materialized.

And as you can see by a couple of posts in this thread that there are still some locals that have a verbal first policy.

As Bug said, it is a gray area. The contract does not say verbal first, but it also doesn't say no verbal first.

Like I said before, I have never seen a discharge under progressive discipline in my over 30 years. So theoretically, at least in my case, it may be a mute point.

It can become an issue, but I have never had to get that far yet.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

Took me awhile to accept that chess move, of wanting certain points to remain in a gray area - but I eventually capitulated. I can't recall the specific incidents, but it really seemed neither side wanted clarity. Oooookay!

And as you can see by a couple of posts in this thread that there are still some locals that have a verbal first policy.


As Bug said, it is a gray area..

The BUG is good.... the BUG is wise.


Do you really think.... I would let you guys get screwed ??






-Bug-

 

[Bubblehead]

And as you can see by a couple of posts in this thread that there are still some locals that have a verbal first policy.

As Bug said, it is a gray area. The contract does not say verbal first, but it also doesn't say no verbal first.

Like I said before, I have never seen a discharge under progressive discipline in my over 30 years. So theoretically, at least in my case, it may be a mute point.

It can become an issue, but I have never had to get that far yet.

The way I play it is this:

The contract provides that we talk to management first before we file a grievance.

Kind of like a verbal warning or not for my drivers, the "conversation" with management can be "will you pay for the violation" or "will you stop violating going forward".

It's a similar "gray area" that can make or break a working relationship.

 

[twoweeled]

The way I play it is this:

The contract provides that we talk to management first before we file a grievance.

Kind of like a verbal warning or not for my drivers, the "conversation" with management can be "will you pay for the violation" or "will you stop violating going forward".

It's a similar "gray area" that can make or break a working relationship.

Freaky perfect analogy!

 

[22.34life]

By the contract they don't have to issue a verbal but it's good business practice Imo.the warning letter won't actually be for not performing the methods but the company will put it under the all inclusive "failure to follow instructions ".u don't grieve warning letters u just protest them u grieve all other discipline.