Posts Tagged ‘Collective bargaining policy’
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 votes made the proposal to…Read More
1522 Avery et al. v. UAW GM Dept.
Although the Union acknowledged that a member of Delphi Management misled appellants about the terms of the employment being offered to them, it explained that it withdrew appellants’ grievance because the UAW-Delphi Agreement does not provide any remedy for claims such as detrimental reliance. We have concluded that this decision was rationally based. The terms…Read More
1568 Henderson v. UAW GM Dept.
The negotiation of the settlement agreement and the plan to have it approved in a class action lawsuit was part of a complex bargaining policy which we are forbidden by Article 33, §3(f), to review in any way. Reconsideration was requested and denied.Read More
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 under Article 19, §3, of…Read More
1611 Gillis v. Local Union 1976
Gillis’ interpretation of the local collective bargaining agreement is mistaken. The super seniority provisions are designed to ensure that active employees have union representatives available to enforce the contract so these provisions take precedence over more general descriptions of bumping rights. In addition, the committeeperson explained that his decision not to pursue Gillis’ claim that…Read More
1647 Dragomier, et al. v. Local Union 1112
A grievance for appellants in 2008 would have been contrary to the UAW’s nationwide strategy for placing employees in accordance with Appendix A following the contraction of GM’s operations. Documents in the record and testimony given during oral argument support a conclusion that the union sought and obtained the approvals required by Appendix A for…Read More
1655 Englehart v. UAW Heavy Truck Dept.
The International Representative refused management’s offer to return the Appendix D transferees to their home plant or adjust their seniority dates at Jacksonville based on equitable considerations, but he failed to consider the adverse impact this decision had on the seniority rights of employees already at Jacksonville. The Company’s offer to return appellant to his…Read More
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 prior buyout offers in order…Read More
1695 Corbat v. Region 1
Representative Kapa withdrew Corbat’s grievance because the local agreements were being applied in accordance with the local parties’ longstanding practice regarding the compensation of drivers. Corbat has not identified any deficiency in the handling of his grievance. It was withdrawn because it had no merit. Any concerns regarding the local union’s collective bargaining policy should…Read More
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 provided WPS unit members with…Read More