Collective bargaining policy
1824 Daudelin v. UAW Local Union 1435
Appellant challenges the refusal of the Unit Bargaining Committee to permit debate at a Unit meeting regarding Appellant’s proposed bargaining demand for changes to the Local Agreement concerning overtime opportunities for the Unit Chairperson. In rejecting Appellant’s appeal, the International Executive Board focused on the Bargaining Committee’s authority to determine ...VIEW DETAILS →
1504 Shotwell v. UAW GM Dept.
The Democratic Practices section of the Ethical Practices Codes clearly recognizes that members do enjoy the right to self-government when they act through elected representatives. The ratification framework that Shotwell objects to was put in place by elected representatives acting on behalf of their constituents. The fact that combining the ...VIEW DETAILS →
1522 Avery et al. v. UAW GM Dept.
Although the Union acknowledged that a member of Delphi Management misled appellants about the terms of the employment being offered to them, it explained that it withdrew appellants’ grievance because the UAW-Delphi Agreement does not provide any remedy for claims such as detrimental reliance. We have concluded that this decision ...VIEW DETAILS →
1568 Henderson v. UAW GM Dept.
The negotiation of the settlement agreement and the plan to have it approved in a class action lawsuit was part of a complex bargaining policy which we are forbidden by Article 33, §3(f), to review in any way. Reconsideration was requested and denied.VIEW DETAILS →
1605 Lartigue, et al. v. IEB
The evidence in the record is not sufficient to meet the very high burden of establishing that the vote to ratify the MGM Grand contract should be rejected. Nevertheless, the UAW’s arrangement with the other unions representing casino employees does not in any way diminish the rights of UAW members ...VIEW DETAILS →
1611 Gillis v. Local Union 1976
Gillis’ interpretation of the local collective bargaining agreement is mistaken. The super seniority provisions are designed to ensure that active employees have union representatives available to enforce the contract so these provisions take precedence over more general descriptions of bumping rights. In addition, the committeeperson explained that his decision not ...VIEW DETAILS →
1647 Dragomier, et al. v. Local Union 1112
A grievance for appellants in 2008 would have been contrary to the UAW’s nationwide strategy for placing employees in accordance with Appendix A following the contraction of GM’s operations. Documents in the record and testimony given during oral argument support a conclusion that the union sought and obtained the approvals ...VIEW DETAILS →
1655 Englehart v. UAW Heavy Truck Dept.
The International Representative refused management’s offer to return the Appendix D transferees to their home plant or adjust their seniority dates at Jacksonville based on equitable considerations, but he failed to consider the adverse impact this decision had on the seniority rights of employees already at Jacksonville. The Company’s offer ...VIEW DETAILS →
1677 Kosa et al. v. UAW General Motors Department
Decisions made by the Union in connection with the negotiation of the SAP in 2009 were part of the Union’s collective bargaining policy developed to deal with GM’s bankruptcy and reorganization. The PRB has no jurisdiction to review the International Union’s official bargaining policy. Appellants’ claim that the Chairperson rejected ...VIEW DETAILS →
1695 Corbat v. Region 1
Representative Kapa withdrew Corbat’s grievance because the local agreements were being applied in accordance with the local parties’ longstanding practice regarding the compensation of drivers. Corbat has not identified any deficiency in the handling of his grievance. It was withdrawn because it had no merit. Any concerns regarding the local ...VIEW DETAILS →