Time limits

1826 Sass, et al. v. UAW International Union

Under Article 33, §4(c) of the UAW International Constitution, Appellants had 30 days from when they first learned of the withdrawal of their grievance in which to file an appeal with the International Executive Board.  Regrettably, Appellants failed to file a timely appeal.  Appellants argue that they should not be ...
VIEW DETAILS

1817 Hall v. UAW International Union

This case involves an appeal from International Representative’s  decision to withdraw Appellant’s termination grievance.  Accordingly, the applicable time limit under Article 33, §4(c) is 30 days.  Union members have a responsibility to abide by the Constitution’s time limits for filing an appeal.  In this case, there is no dispute that ...
VIEW DETAILS

1807 Slight et al. v. UAW International President

Appellants acknowledge that they did not file an appeal within 30 days of when they first became aware that their grievances had been withdrawn.  As a result, they recognize that the International President must grant a request for a waiver of time limits in order for them to proceed with ...
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

1471 Hill v. Local 212 Executive Board

There is no credible evidence in the record to support Hill’s claim that he filed his appeal from the rejection of his charges against the Local Recording Secretary within the time limits prescribed by the Constitution. Hill’s charge against the Local President for mishandling the charge against the Recording Secretary ...
VIEW DETAILS

1482 Yettaw v. International Union

The International Union distributed printed editions of the Constitution containing the revised Interpretations in December 2002. Even if a copy was not delivered directly to Yettaw or his Local Union, he could easily have obtained a copy of the newly adopted Constitution after that date. He did not raise the ...
VIEW DETAILS

1489 Redfern v. International Union

Redfern’s appeal to the IEB from the President’s refusal to waive the time limits applicable to his appeal was itself untimely, so we need not reach the question whether we would have jurisdiction to consider his argument that the circumstances warranted a waiver of the time limits.
VIEW DETAILS

1500 Addison v. IEB

Addison’s appeal on October 20, 2003, was timely. Although he learned of the settlement during a Unit meeting on June 20, 2003, he was also informed at that meeting that the Unit Chairperson intended to appeal. There is nothing in the record to refute Addison’s assertion that he filed his ...
VIEW DETAILS

1505 Karniewicz v. Local 1999 Executive Board

Karniewicz’ charge was properly disqualified under Article 31, §3(c), for his allegations do not sustain a charge of a violation of the Constitution or conduct unbecoming a union member. Karniewicz has not explained what he found objectionable about the Shop Chairperson’s apparently innocuous jest. He states that he regarded the ...
VIEW DETAILS

1507 & 1510 Willis and Smith v. IEB

Although Smith’s appeal from the IEB’s decision was not filed within 30 days, we will not reject an appeal as untimely where the appellant has made a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised or to obtain information about appeal procedures. We find that principle applicable to Smith’s situation. ...
VIEW DETAILS