Processing of grievances

1855 Latif v. UAW Stellantis Department

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 ...
VIEW DETAILS

1852 Bell v. UAW Region 1

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 ...
VIEW DETAILS

1851 Johnson v. UAW Local Union 31

The PRB finds that the Zone Committeeperson’s decision to withdraw the grievance was rational.  Multiple witnesses asserted that Appellant had acted in an aggressive manner toward a co-worker.  In addition, a supervisor witnessed part of the incident.  As the Union recognized, employers increasingly view threatening behavior in the workplace as ...
VIEW DETAILS

1849 Driver v. UAW Region 2B

The PRB’s jurisdiction over appeals related to the processing 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.  Here, the International Representative relied heavily ...
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

1842 Self v. UAW Region 2B

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 ...
VIEW DETAILS

1841 Butler v. International Union, UAW

The IEB incorrectly held that this appeal was untimely.  This case involves an appeal from the International Representative’s decision not to pursue further Appellant’s reinstatement.  Accordingly, the applicable time limit under Article 33, §4(c) is 30 days from when Appellant first learned of the International Representative’s decision on October 30, ...
VIEW DETAILS

1831 Pratt v. International Union, UAW

The PRB agrees that the relief sought by Appellants effectively has been granted.  Appellants sought to have their Local removed from the jurisdiction of the Region 2B Director and the assigned International Representative.  The Regional Director has now resigned, and the International Representative has been reassigned.  Appellants other complaints regarding ...
VIEW DETAILS

1837 Dickey v. UAW Region 8

In this case, the Board focuses on whether the International Representative had a rational basis for his decision to withdraw Appellant’s termination grievance.  The Company’s Attendance Control Policy places the burden upon the employee to substantiate that a period of absence falls within the non-chargeable category.  On April 18, 2019, ...
VIEW DETAILS

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