|
Post by danjcamp on Jan 30, 2009 11:52:14 GMT -5
Coordinated action is called for on this issue. What we need is grievances filed from every building where 22.3 jobs are being eliminated, not bid, laid off or what ever. The contract is clear. There should be 20,000 full time combo jobs period. Unless and until every part time employee is laid off, these jobs should be in place.
My advice is that grievance need to be filed from all buildings where these eliminations are taking place. File with the local and send a copy directly to the Parcel Office asking for their attention to this national issue. The more this happens the more likely the Parcel Office will get involved. We cannot allow them to think this problem is isolated to a few places.
File early and file often, demand the Parcel Office get involved.
|
|
jwbs
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by jwbs on Feb 1, 2009 2:04:52 GMT -5
What is the address for the Parcel Office?
|
|
|
Post by displaced on Feb 1, 2009 15:40:49 GMT -5
We 22.3s at DFW didn't even know what hit us until we were called to IE and said "bid" on 2 part-time jobs, many with 6-8 hours gap and this is all that's available. We knew the midnight sort was being sent to Louisville Feb 8th and the news statement UPS put out in November said "other operations will not be impacted". We are facing elmination of 117, 22.3 jobs and getting little or no info from our local 767 or being told they can't do anything until UPS "acutally does it" so we're all thinking we've been thrown under the bus.
The only sort that should have been affected was Midnight and IF contract had been followed they would have been allowed to follow their work to KY or dovetail into other sorts. UPS has chosen to eliminate ALL 22.3s, all sorts. We have been denied Seniority rights to bump 2 part-timers as they insist on calling it a layoff although recently I hear they're calling it restructuring.
We have filed approximately 180 grievances to date and are more than willing to accept outside help and participate in a Class Action nationwide. We are all fighting for our jobs and future jobs for others behind even though our Local doesnt' seem to be in the same fight with us.
|
|
jwbs
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by jwbs on Feb 2, 2009 4:06:05 GMT -5
Last October I had asked my business agent about requesting the report from the IBT detailing and identifying the 20,000 full-time jobs that should be created and maintained per the contract language. He said if he "starts pressing their buttons they are going to get pissed off!". That alone tells me all the Local unions are afraid and hesitant to get this info from the IBT. There must be something big going on between UPS and the IBT that they could get in trouble for. I think they are trying to cover their tracks before they even produce a list showing where these 20,000 jobs are. In the meantime we need to do all that we can to put pressure on the local Unions to honor any and all contract language. Has anyone here contacted the NLRB in their area? Here is some useful information I found on the NLRB website. How Do I File a Charge Against An Employer or a Union?www.nlrb.gov/workplace_rights/i_am_new_to_this_website/how_do_i_file_a_charge_against_an_employer_or_a_union.aspxProcedures Guide for Filing a Charge (Types of charges include charges against unions for arbitrarily or discriminatorily failing to process an employee's grievance).www.nlrb.gov/publications/Procedures_Guide.htmWhat To Expect When A Charge Is Filedwww.nlrb.gov/about_us/public_notices/customer_service_standards/unfair_labor_practice_cases.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Site Steward on Feb 2, 2009 11:34:30 GMT -5
Too many local officers are afraid to rock the Hoffa boat. Absolutely. It's my understanding that Local 150 ultimately did get the list. Some members at least went over it and identified "ghost jobs" -- vacant 22.3 jobs on the list. Other locals have gotten the list also. Some locals have not. In most cases (like yours) the officials that got the list (like L150) did it because there was pressure from the membership. We've got to build more of it--and put heat on local officials who are giving Hoffa a free pass. The problem with the NLRB route is that it is nearly impossible to win a DFR charge at the NLRB. If your local has filed a grievance on this issue, that will be more than enough to satisfy the NLRB no matter how little they are doing to win the grievance. TDU will be putting together a conference call to talk about how we can be working together nationally to put pressure on local unions and the International to enforce the contract and save 22.3 jobs. Anyone interested in participating should email admin@makeupsdeliver.org Last October I had asked my business agent about requesting the report from the IBT detailing and identifying the 20,000 full-time jobs that should be created and maintained per the contract language. He said if he "starts pressing their buttons they are going to get pissed off!". That alone tells me all the Local unions are afraid and hesitant to get this info from the IBT. There must be something big going on between UPS and the IBT that they could get in trouble for. I think they are trying to cover their tracks before they even produce a list showing where these 20,000 jobs are. In the meantime we need to do all that we can to put pressure on the local Unions to honor any and all contract language. Has anyone here contacted the NLRB in their area? Here is some useful information I found on the NLRB website. How Do I File a Charge Against An Employer or a Union?www.nlrb.gov/workplace_rights/i_am_new_to_this_website/how_do_i_file_a_charge_against_an_employer_or_a_union.aspxProcedures Guide for Filing a Charge (Types of charges include charges against unions for arbitrarily or discriminatorily failing to process an employee's grievance).www.nlrb.gov/publications/Procedures_Guide.htmWhat To Expect When A Charge Is Filedwww.nlrb.gov/about_us/public_notices/customer_service_standards/unfair_labor_practice_cases.aspx
|
|
jwbs
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by jwbs on Feb 2, 2009 19:47:08 GMT -5
Too many local officers are afraid to rock the Hoffa boat. Absolutely. It's my understanding that Local 150 ultimately did get the list. Some members at least went over it and identified "ghost jobs" -- vacant 22.3 jobs on the list. Other locals have gotten the list also. Some locals have not. In most cases (like yours) the officials that got the list (like L150) did it because there was pressure from the membership. We've got to build more of it--and put heat on local officials who are giving Hoffa a free pass. But that's just a local listing. I'm talking about the report as mentioned in Article 22.3 of the Nation Master Agreement detailing and identifying all 20,000 Article 22.3 jobs that supposedly exist and need to be maintained. The problem with the NLRB route is that it is nearly impossible to win a DFR charge at the NLRB. If your local has filed a grievance on this issue, that will be more than enough to satisfy the NLRB no matter how little they are doing to win the grievance. How can we know if our local actually filed the grievance or just threw it away? They can tell us they filed it but what if we want to be shown proof?
|
|
|
Post by omlo75 on Feb 2, 2009 22:37:15 GMT -5
I have been reading alot of the replies pertaining to the elimination of 22.3 jobs eliminations within the respective west coast areas. Here in the central states area of North Carolina local 391 we have not experienced layoffs of the 22.3 jobs but we have experienced elimination or lack of replacing vacant jobs. I will say this pertaining to class action suits and more or less getting your National Labor Board involved. Over the last two years I have filed roughly 3 charges against UPS and one against the union for lack of representation. Needless to say I did win two against UPS only to find out that on the third particular charge our union and ups had made a deal. This is an understanding that all of us members must understand. There is not a contract being breached if the union and ups agree. This was thoroughly explained to me from the labor lawyer from my NLRB here in NC. The underlying problem starts with who we elect as presidents and business agents of our unions. Deals can be made regardless if we have a set contract unless we as members impose provisions that dictate in order for language to be changed it must involve a vote. It has become very clear to me that the deals and misguidance of our union is placing working class families at risk.
|
|
|
Post by bigbrother on Feb 3, 2009 1:51:02 GMT -5
Hi everyone, this is Big Brother from Rocklin, CA. Today (Monday) starts my first of 5 days of forced lay-off before management will let me work the split shift (pre-load / local sort). My management team says they have to follow the contract of laying off a full-time employee before I can displace 2 part-time employees. Funny, I thought I displaced two part-time jobs when I accepted the 22.3 bid. Another funny thing is that management is working at least 40 other full-time lower seniority (drivers) while they have me on forced lay-off. My business agent, Perry Hogan, just says to file a grievance and that there is nothing else that he can do. Question for everyone! I know that I can ask for this lay-off time to be reimbursed for pay, pension, benefits, and penalty pay for each week I don't get paid, but can I ask for all the hours worked from all the full-time employees that have worked this week that have lower full-time seniority than myself with penalty pay? That would really shake the boat if I won a grievance like that and send a message to UPS. Just wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by danjcamp on Feb 3, 2009 10:51:46 GMT -5
The Parcel Office at the IBT needs to get on this. Only they can get a true picture of what is going on nationwide. In the mean time, every time a 22.3 job is eliminated, not filled or a 22.3 person is put on lay off, a grievance should be filed with a copy sent to the Parcel Office. Here is the address:
Parcel and Small Package Division IBT attn: Ken Hall 25 Louisiana Ave NW Washington, DC 20001
also send a copy to TDU P.O. Box 10128 Detroit, MI 48210
The Parcel Office at the IBT is responsible for monitoring to make sure the 20,000 full time combo jobs are being maintained. It does appear that UPS can move the jobs from place to place so long as they maintain 20,000. If UPS does decide to move a job from a particular building, it raises several questions that need to answered, probably via the grievance procedure.
1. Can a 22.3 person follow the work if they so desire? This question should be the subject of grievances.
2. If a 22.3 person is laid off, are they being treated fairly according to the grievance procedure? Lay off language varies greatly from place to place due to the fact that it is governed by supplemental, local language and practice in each area. It is difficult in this forum to give advice because of this fact.
The bottom line is that we need to bombard the Parcel Office with copies of our grievances. Only by doing this will we have a chance that it will get the attention of the Parcel Office.
|
|
jwbs
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by jwbs on Feb 4, 2009 18:17:12 GMT -5
There are 2 Article 22.3 workers that went to the new Cordova building as drivers. I'm not too clear on the details but someone was saying that these employees were told that they couldn't go back to their original Article 22.3 jobs at the Sacramento hub if they get disqualified as drivers at the Cordova building. They were told UPS could just give them "any" Article 22.3 job if they go back and it doesn't have to be their original Article 22.3 bid.
Can UPS do this to them? I know part-time employees at the Sacramento hub were told that if they go to the Cordova building, they can't go back to their old jobs.
The new Cordova facility is already laying off employees and this is the first week the building is up and running. And according to a part-timer at the Cordova building, possibly more layoffs next week too, as he was told to call in next Monday before reporting to work.
|
|
jwbs
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by jwbs on Feb 4, 2009 19:34:55 GMT -5
Are Article 22.3 full-time jobs considered combo jobs per the contract language?
My shop steward says combo jobs aren't Article 22. 3 jobs and that combo jobs are a different classification.
My point is that my Article 22.3 job is Clerk for the first shift and charging on the box-line for the 2nd shift. Shouldn't I be paid at the rate of the highest job classification, which is the Center Clerk rate of pay, for the whole day? That is what Article 21 section 3 of the NorCal supplement states regarding combination jobs.
Or is it true that I am only entitled to the top-rate of pay for full-time inside jobs, per the National Master agreement Article 41.3?
|
|
|
Post by bigbrother on Feb 5, 2009 17:30:55 GMT -5
It looks like the union and the company mutually agree that the reference to combination jobs (unless 22.3 is specifically mentioned) is an Article 21 combination employee. There is a grievance being heard at the National Grievance hearings right now by Local 150 (Sacramento) regarding the issue of that all clerk and car wash jobs are article 21 work and should be paid at the higher pay rate. This includes all work that is currently being performed by 22.3 and part-time employees. If the union wins this, there is a good chance that all of these jobs might be rebid to full-time employees first.
|
|
jwbs
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by jwbs on Feb 5, 2009 19:25:37 GMT -5
If the jobs were rebid, wouldn't all Article 22.3's who currently hold the positions be entitled to back-pay/unpaid wages? Also this shouldn't just affect clerks and car washers. Shouldn't chargers get an extra dollar for sorting? That's what I've been told. So that would be another higher paying position to be considered. If these Article 22.3's had to be rebid, I'd like to see all Article 21 "combo" jobs rebid as well. It's only fair. A combo job is simply described in the contract as an employee being required to work in more than one classification during their working hours. The customer counter employees just work one job classification from 10am-6pm, but get paid according to the Article 21 rate of pay for that classification. They are not working 2 different jobs. So they can't be considered combo jobs. Article 21 just specifies pay rates for job classifications. And combo jobs are described in the same article under a different section(3), but the pay rates in the contract do not specify that they are confined to or used to define "combo jobs". What about the part-timer who unloads on his normal shift, and then doubles as a car washer? Does it mean they are not entitled to a higher rate of pay because they don't have a "combo job"? I don't think so. Also, on the full-time seniority list here at the Sacramento hub, it specifically shows Article 22.3 employee's job classification as "Article22 Combo". So to me that means Article 22.3 jobs are combo jobs and not one or the other. And they should be considered combo jobs, since 2 part-time job classifications are combined to make all Article 22.3 full-time combo positions. Do you think a decision to rebid these jobs would make UPS rebid current vacant Article 22.3 jobs? If they would rebid one set of jobs so easily I don't see why they couldn't rebid the vacant jobs too. Anyway, I think the UPS viewpoint would be to want to specify these jobs as Article 22.3 only, since it would save them money, with a lower top rate. The Union's viewpoint should be to want to make UPS pay Article 22.3's at the highest job classification so they can collect higher Union dues from the higher wages. So I guess this may be a deadlocked case. But the Letter of Understanding for Article 22.3 Full-time Employee Work Rules states, "Employees shall be paid according to the National Master UPS Agreement AND the NCSA (NorCal Suppletmental Agreement). That means Article 21.3 of the NCSA defining combination jobs can be used in our favor. That is if our union does their job.
|
|
|
Post by cybersteward on Feb 6, 2009 16:11:04 GMT -5
In Willow Grove, PA, around a dozen article 22.3s have been told they'll be laid off on Fridays for a while.
This is being done despite the fact that the operations in which they work are still running, and other employees (mostly part-time workers with a little as a few month's seniority) are still doing the work.
After speaking with my BA about this, it appears that UPS has decided to reformulate the concept of seniority. They have even removed all article 22.3 employees from the hub's seniority list, where we had been listed until the past few days. He said that the company is laying off according to seniority, but explained that the company now sees our classification as strictly "full-time" and not by the jobs we perform.
They are also citing language in our supplement that calls for the right of a full-time employee to displace one or more part-time employees after a one-day layoff. The company apparently maintains that because the layoffs are only one day at a time, each Friday is a separate layoff -- meaning that they won't allow employees being laid off on Fridays to bump at all.
This isn't affecting me personally yet, but with twisted logic like this, it's not hard to see how it could if it goes unchallenged. And perhaps the most frustrating element is that one steward I know has reported that a BA was part of the meeting where this was implemented, but when I (and others) ask, the BA denies any awareness or involvement, claiming the union is against it.
Some of us have started filing grievances, and even pressing the union to file a labor charge (if they truly aren't involved).
I know a lot of folks are experiencing worse in terms of job losses, but at a basic level, seniority is everything. If we let the company decide how it's defined, I don't know how this is ever going to stop.
|
|
|
Post by nowisee on Feb 10, 2009 13:56:49 GMT -5
Local 182 Upstate New York. Four out of six 22.3 jobs have been changed, also rate of pay reduced to inside part timer pay. Bids have eliminated one 22.3, reducing to five total in building. Excuse was, that the job was being moved to a main hub. I have filed many valid grievances of these issues, only to have them snubbed at local, state, and national.
Any support that is needed for exposure, I will be most happy to volunteer.
|
|