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 →
1470 Torres v. Local Union 594
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 ...VIEW DETAILS →
1481 Thielen v. Local 72 Executive Board
There was no basis for Local Union to demand that Thielen’s vacation be rescinded based on her seniority in Department 866. The Recording Secretary and the Financial Secretary were both treated as part-time employees of the Local during this period and the Company paid each of them twenty hours per ...VIEW DETAILS →
1476 II Gaston-Kelley v. UAW DaimlerChrysler Dept.
A Department Director has broad discretion in the matter of appointing and removing special purpose representatives, but there is no evidence of an exercise of that discretion in this case. Gaston-Kelley never received anything from the DaimlerChrysler Department removing her from her appointed position as Local Heath and Safety Representative. ...VIEW DETAILS →
1509 Patterson v. Local Union 848
The Local presented Patterson’s arguments to the Company, but it was not persuaded to change its position. The Local Union’s determination that the Company’s position could not be successfully challenged was based on the experience of former Committeemen and the established past practice. Patterson’s claim that the Union’s decision to ...VIEW DETAILS →
1527 Edwards v. UAW Ford Dept.
When Edwards could not acquire the skills necessary to do the job assigned to him, he was given a different assignment. His reassignment did not violate the collective bargaining agreement and the Ford Department Representative who investigated the grievance found no evidence of discrimination.VIEW DETAILS →
1531 Nafus v. Region 9
There is no evidence that Nafus’ status as a Beck objector, or his public expressions of dissatisfaction with the Union influenced the Representative’s decision in any way. Nafus’ refusal to sign a waiver that would allow Management to confirm his completion of an anger management program violated the terms of ...VIEW DETAILS →
1581 Jones v. Region 2B
The posted job was a journeyman position, and the two employees who were selected had documented experience in the Electrician classification. There was no contractual basis for the Union to insist that Ford Motor Company give Jones a chance to learn the job. The Regional Representative withdrew Jones’ grievance based ...VIEW DETAILS →
1600 Addison v. Region 8
At the time of his discharge, Addison was working under the terms of a reinstatement agreement which stated that future violations of Company shop rules would result in discharge. Addison was discharged for violating a Company policy prohibiting employees from reporting to work for overtime before 5:00 a.m. Addison claimed ...VIEW DETAILS →
1635 Ethical Practices Complaint, Gainer v. UAW GM Dept.
Gainer’s appeal concerning her removal as Human Resource Development Representative in 1999 is barred by the UAW Constitutional time limits. The time limit applicable to appeals or Ethical Practices Complaints begins to run when the member first becomes aware of the action being challenged. Gainer has demonstrated by her own ...VIEW DETAILS →