Hostile work environment

Appellant does not claim that the International Representative’s decision to settle her grievance was the product of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management.  Accordingly, the PRB focuses on whether the decision to settle the grievance had a rational basis.  The International Representative thoroughly investigated Appellant’s termination grievance but found that ...

The Local Chairperson made a rational decision to withdraw Appellant’s grievance.  Appellant was a low seniority employee who was disciplined multiple times during her short tenure with the Company.  In fact, management previously disciplined Appellant for the same infraction which lead to her termination.  When interviewed by the Company about ...

The International Representative made a rational decision that the Union was unlikely to prevail on Appellant’s grievance alleging harassment and a hostile work environment due to a lack of evidence to substantiate the claim.  The Representative also reasonably concluded that the plant closure meant that Appellant was no longer subjected ...

Appellant has appealed the decision to withdraw her grievances challenging her demotion from a higher paid position.  The International Representative’s decision to withdraw the grievances was not irrational.  The Company produced documentation showing that it had provided extensive training to Appellant and identifying deficiencies in her performance.  Appellant has claimed ...

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 ...

Management addressed the specific problems Torres faced in her department, so the Local Union’s decision to settle her grievance was rational. Although Torres was still concerned about a pattern of unfair treatment and disrespect, any future problems of this type would have to be addressed in separate grievances. The errors ...

None of the events described in Gillis’ request for a grievance amount to harassment. The employer is not required to meet some kind of burden of proof before instructing an employee to stop wasting time. Gillis suffered no injury that could have been addressed through the grievance procedure, so the ...

Mitz was disciplined for refusing a job assignment which he felt was inconsistent with his rights under the collective bargaining agreement. The International Representative and the Local Shop Committee settled Mitz’s grievances based on their interpretation of the contract. We will not interfere with a local union’s judgment on a ...

The essence of Thompson’s complaint is that management reassigned him and issued discipline because he had raised a safety issue. The parties to the UAW/GM National Agreement have put in place a detailed procedure for dealing with health and safety concerns. There is no evidence in this record that Thompson ...

SurVance’s primary dissatisfaction with the settlement of his grievances appears to be its failure to impose restraints on his supervisor’s authority to impose discipline for future alleged shop rule violations.  The Union cannot use the grievance procedure to insulate an employee from discipline for future shop rule violations.  Paragraph (6a) ...