Ratification of contracts
1463 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 →
1504 Shotwell v. UAW GM Dept.
The Democratic Practices section of the Ethical Practices Codes clearly recognizes that members do enjoy the right to self-government when they act through elected representatives. The ratification framework that Shotwell objects to was put in place by elected representatives acting on behalf of their constituents. The fact that combining the ...VIEW DETAILS →
1524 Sasaki v. Local Union 1853
The basis for Sasaki’s appeal is his misunderstanding of a letter written by a GM Department Coordinator to another member concerning the application of the Local seniority agreement. His objection to the Local Union’s failure to restore GM seniority dates to former GM employees at Saturn is clearly untimely and ...VIEW DETAILS →
1550 Lapso v. UAW Ford Dept.
Appellants argued that there was not adequate time to inform the membership of Local 1250 about the amendments and the procedures for ratification and that some members may not have voted because the ratification vote coincided with a scheduled layoff in the plants represented by Local Union 1250. The ratification ...VIEW DETAILS →
1579 Evans et al. v. UAW Ford Dept.
The UAW Ford Department interpreted the phrase “date of hiring” in Article VIII, §4(a), of the UAW/Ford National Agreement to refer to the date of hire at the physical location rather than date of hire by Ford Motor Company. Appellants argue that this interpretation was incorrect and violated their seniority ...VIEW DETAILS →
1605 Lartigue, et al. v. IEB
The evidence in the record is not sufficient to meet the very high burden of establishing that the vote to ratify the MGM Grand contract should be rejected. Nevertheless, the UAW’s arrangement with the other unions representing casino employees does not in any way diminish the rights of UAW members ...VIEW DETAILS →
1618 Hodges v. Local Union 600 Joint Council
Administration of the profit sharing plan is not a matter pertaining strictly to the Severstal Unit within the meaning of Article 35, §3(c), of the UAW Constitution, because the president of Local Union 600 is charged with responsibility for resolving disputes arising from the company’s profit sharing calculation. The letter ...VIEW DETAILS →
1677 Kosa et al. v. UAW General Motors Department
Decisions made by the Union in connection with the negotiation of the SAP in 2009 were part of the Union’s collective bargaining policy developed to deal with GM’s bankruptcy and reorganization. The PRB has no jurisdiction to review the International Union’s official bargaining policy. Appellants’ claim that the Chairperson rejected ...VIEW DETAILS →
1686 Windau, Grevatt, and Wassell, in the Matter of Skilled Trades Members v. IEB
The IEB always has the final authority under Article 19, §3, to determine whether a contract should be declared ratified after it has been approved by a majority of the members participating in the ratification process. In situations where there has been a negative vote by skilled trades members, Article ...VIEW DETAILS →
1701 Sheets and Weills v. UAW Chrysler Dept. and Region 2B
The Wrangler Paint Shop (WPS) committee was involved in the transition of the paint shop back to Chrysler to the fullest extent anticipated by Article 19, §3. Throughout this difficult bargaining process, the union met with the WPS committee members and kept them informed about the process. The UAW-Chrysler Department ...VIEW DETAILS →