Processing of appeals

1877 Kreszowski v. UAW Stellantis Department

Appellant claims that the decision to withdraw his grievances was tainted by fraud, discrimination, and collusion with management, but offers no evidence to support this allegation.  Accordingly, the PRB focuses on whether there was a rational basis for the withdrawal.  The Local and the International Union went to considerable lengths ...
VIEW DETAILS

1875 Kaanta v. International President, UAW

Although the IEB decision only addressed the timeliness of this appeal, the International Union chose to address the merits of this case, as well as the issue of time limits, before the PRB.  This was a sound approach, especially since the Board views the issue of timeliness in this case ...
VIEW DETAILS

1865 Bond v. International President, UAW

This case involves an appeal from an International Representative’s decision to withdraw Appellant’s termination grievance.  Accordingly, the applicable time limit under Article 33, §4(c) is 30 days.  Appellant acknowledges that he first learned about the withdrawal of his grievance on June 7, 2022.  Yet, he did not send his appeal to ...
VIEW DETAILS

1863 Young v. UAW Region 2B

The International Union argues that the Appellant lacks standing because she accepted a settlement in which she agreed to resign her employment in exchange for compensation.  Consistent with prior PRB decisions, the Board rejects this argument.  The relevant consideration in this case is what is being appealed.  Appellant is appealing ...
VIEW DETAILS

1859 Bell v. International Union, UAW

Article 33 of the UAW International Constitution sets forth the procedures and standards applicable to appeals presented to the IEB.  Under this provision, the Appellant must supply certain basic information regarding the matter appealed.  In this case, the International President’s office followed its standard procedure in requesting additional information from ...
VIEW DETAILS

1857 Woods v. International Union, UAW

This case involves an action taken by the Local Shop Committee.  Therefore, the first level of appeal was to the Local membership.  However, at the point in time when Appellant sent his appeal letter to the International President’s office, the Local membership had yet to consider his appeal.  Subsequently, the ...
VIEW DETAILS

1854 Sandoval v. International Union, UAW

To warrant overturning an election’s results and conducting a rerun, two requirements must be met: (1) an election rule violation must be firmly established; and (2) there must be clear and convincing evidence that the violation could have affected the outcome of the election.  Appellant’s primary argument is that members ...
VIEW DETAILS

1850 Price v. UAW Local Union 372

The Local denied the appeal based on time limits, but the timeliness issue in this case is far from clear-cut, especially in light of the circumstances created by the pandemic.  Perhaps for that reason, the IEB's decision did not decide the appeal based on time limits and instead addressed the ...
VIEW DETAILS

1848 Toth, et al. v. International President, UAW

In the case of an appeal to the International Executive Board (IEB) from the decision of a Local Union, the time limit is 30 days under Article 33 of the International Constitution.  Appellants acknowledge that they did not file an appeal within 30 days of when they received notice that ...
VIEW DETAILS

1846 Riley v. UAW Local Union 598 Executive Board

The PRB applies a presumption that all elections conducted by a local union are valid.  To rebut this presumption, a challenger must show by clear and convincing evidence that some improper practice occurred to such a degree that it could have affected the outcome of the election.  Appellant’s primary claim ...
VIEW DETAILS