Processing of grievances

1833 Reynolds v. UAW FCA Department

Given the weight of the evidence showing that Appellant committed serious violations of the Company’s harassment policy, the International Representative made a reasonable decision to settle the termination grievance in exchange for the opportunity to accept early retirement.   Appellant argues that he was not consulted in advance about the settlement.  ...
VIEW DETAILS

1830 Minney v. International Union, UAW

This case involves an appeal of an International Representative’s decision to withdraw a termination grievance.  Accordingly, the applicable time limit for filing an appeal under Article 33, §4(c) is 30 days.  Appellant was advised by letter that her appeal had been withdrawn but waited nearly five years before filing an ...
VIEW DETAILS

1822 Cowan v. UAW Local Union 600

The PRB’s jurisdiction over appeals related to the handling of grievances is limited to claims that the matter was improperly handled because of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management, or that the disposition or handling of the matter was devoid of any rational basis.  The Board agrees with Appellant that ...
VIEW DETAILS

1815 Green v. UAW FCA Department

The PRB’s jurisdiction over appeals related to the handling of grievances is limited to claims that the matter was improperly handled because of fraud, discrimination, or collusion with management, or that the disposition or handling of the matter was devoid of any rational basis.  In cases involving the discharge of ...
VIEW DETAILS

1793-II Baltrusaitis, et al. v. UAW Region 1

As the PRB determined in its prior decision in this case, Appellants have made a sufficient threshold showing that fraud or collusion could have impacted the 2011 transfer of operations to warrant further investigation.  Under the circumstances, the Board found it appropriate for the International Union to present documents or ...
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

1811 Russell v. UAW FCA Department

Appellant challenges the International Representative’s assessment that the Company’s settlement offer was preferable to arbitration of Appellant’s grievance.  Under the circumstances, the PRB finds that the decision to settle the discipline grievance does not lack a rational basis.  The Representative conducted an adequate investigation of the grievance.  He recognized that ...
VIEW DETAILS

1810 Sharp v. UAW FCA Department

Appellant challenges the decision of the UAW FCA Department to withdraw his termination grievance.  Appellant’s primary contention is that the International Representative handling his grievance incorrectly identified him as an aggressor in the altercation based upon the Representative’s review of the Company’s surveillance video.  It is not the function of ...
VIEW DETAILS

1793 Baltrusaitis, et al. v. UAW Region 1

Appellants filed a grievance alleging that the 2011 transfer of Unit 53 employees from the Chrysler Technical Center to the Trenton Engine Complex was the product of collusion between FCA and the Union with the ultimate objective of shifting bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit employees.  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