Contract interpretations

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

1823 Pearson in the Matter of Robinson v. UAW Local Union 140

The International Union asserts that this case falls under the appellate limitation found in Article 33, §2(b) of the International Constitution pertaining to obviously correct interpretations of bargaining agreements.  As the PRB has concluded in past decisions, the Article 33, §2(b) limitation does not apply when complex or heavily contested ...
VIEW DETAILS

1814 Kreszowski v. UAW FCA Department

The UAW FCA Department’s decision to withdraw Appellant’s grievance was not devoid of a rational basis.  As the PRB has held in numerous past decisions, the Board will not overturn the grievance-handler’s interpretation of applicable agreement terms, provided the interpretation rests upon a rational basis.  Here, the UAW FCA Department ...
VIEW DETAILS

1645 Rosa v. Local Union

There was no one-year agreement permitting Rosa to be laid off, so that his request for a grievance in October 2002 protesting the Company’s failure to recall him after one year had no contractual basis and was untimely.
VIEW DETAILS

1466 Powell and Riddell in the matter of Stewart v. IEB

A charge that a committeeperson exercised poor judgment in the handling of a grievance should not be submitted to a trial committee, absent a claim that the accused acted out of malice or willful and wanton disregard of the charging party’s interest. The difficult task of sorting out the respective ...
VIEW DETAILS

1469 Long et al. v. Local Union 2089

The job description of the “PPM” position that was posted in January 6, 1998, clearly stated that the job was in the maintenance classification. No one challenged employee Durbin’s right to accrue seniority in the maintenance classification when he was awarded the “PPM” position in 1998. The 1999 document that ...
VIEW DETAILS

1462 Morgan v. Local Union 832

We are not confronted with the question whether the Union could have persuaded an arbitrator to enforce Morgan’s right to bump into the Packer/Stocker position over Management’s objection. The record supports the conclusion that but for the Local President’s intervention Morgan would have been allowed to bump into the Packer/Stocker ...
VIEW DETAILS

1509 Patterson v. Local Union 848

The Local presented Patterson’s arguments to the Company, but it was not persuaded to change its position. The Local Union’s determination that the Company’s position could not be successfully challenged was based on the experience of former Committeemen and the established past practice. Patterson’s claim that the Union’s decision to ...
VIEW DETAILS

1526 & 1542 Donovan et al. v. UAW Ford Dept.

Once the membership of Local 2000 voted to reject Vice President Bantom’s recommendation that it combine Units 1 and 2 for purposes of conducting its triennial election, there was no Constitutional basis for Bantom’s insistence that it do so. Nevertheless, the Union’s error in insisting that Local 2000 conduct its ...
VIEW DETAILS

1535 Eardley v. Local Union 1112

Eardley complains that WEMR’s are being allowed to bring their skilled-trades seniority into the Electrician classification to the disadvantage of Electricians. The WEMR and the Electrician classification are related in this location, so time spent in the WEMR classification is the equivalent of time spent in the Electrician classification. The ...
VIEW DETAILS