Plant closures and placement

1878 Anthony v. UAW Region 4

Under the circumstances, the Union’s disposition of Appellant’s grievance was rational.  The Company had the right under the collective bargaining agreement to require the medical exam which resulted in the work restrictions imposed on Appellant.  The Union had no contractual basis to insist that the Company return Appellant to work ...
VIEW DETAILS

1845 Taylor v. UAW Region 1A

Appellant does not assert that the withdrawal of her grievance was motivated by fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management.  Nor is there any basis on the Record to suggest that any such factors influenced the handling of her grievance.  Rather, Appellant disagrees with the International Representative’s conclusion that she was ...
VIEW DETAILS

1543 Thomas v. Amalgamated Local Union 155

There was no legal basis for holding the owner of the business personally liable for the Company’s obligations to its six employees and no corporate assets available to pay those obligations. The only legal claim the Union could assert against the owner was that he wrongfully converted payroll deductions for ...
VIEW DETAILS

1558 Bellew v. UAW DaimlerChrysler Dept.

Bellew has not identified any contract language that was violated by his placement. The fact that individual employees may have been consulted in the past and allowed to choose between alternative options for placement does not constitute an enforceable past practice. There is no basis in this record for concluding ...
VIEW DETAILS

1571 Shotwell v. UAW GM Dept.

There is no dispute that the Lansing Area Hire Area was expanded in 1993 to include Coopersville. Therefore, under the clear language of Paragraph (96a)(1) of the UAW-GM National Agreement, employees transferring from Coopersville to Lansing were not entitled to a relocation allowance.
VIEW DETAILS

1645 Francis v. Local Union 239

The documents distributed to employees prior to the plant closing suggest that an employee could be laid off for up to 24 months without affecting his credited service. We find that Francis’s reliance on those documents was justified. Nevertheless, Francis is not entitled to any further compensation as a result ...
VIEW DETAILS

1656 Brayton v. UAW Ford Dept.

There is no provision in the National Agreement that would allow an employee voluntarily to initiate a transfer to another plant with his or her corporate seniority, thereby affecting the standing of employees on the plant seniority list at the new location. Brayton raised a legitimate objection to an agreement ...
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

1659 Estrada v. UAW GM Dept.

Estrada’s appeal suggested that the adjustment to his skilled trades date-of-entry advanced the date by eight years. In fact, the adjustment restored credit for three years. Prior to the restoration of GM seniority and skilled trades dates-of-entry for former Saturn employees pursuant to the 2009 modifications to the UAW-GM National ...
VIEW DETAILS

1664 Collins v. UAW GM Dept.

Collins was given incorrect information about the application of Appendix A to his situation when he made his decision to move to Mansfield in 2001.  There is no provision in Appendix A that would have allowed Collins to retain his seniority at Parma by foregoing a relocation allowance after accepting ...
VIEW DETAILS