Posts Tagged ‘Contract interpretations’
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.
Read More1466 Powell and Riddell in the matter of Stewart v. IEB
A charge that a committeeperson exercised poor judgment in the handling of a grievance should not be submitted to a trial committee, absent a claim that the accused acted out of malice or willful and wanton disregard of the charging party’s interest. The difficult task of sorting out the respective rights of claimants to a…
Read More1469 Long et al. v. Local Union 2089
The job description of the “PPM” position that was posted in January 6, 1998, clearly stated that the job was in the maintenance classification. No one challenged employee Durbin’s right to accrue seniority in the maintenance classification when he was awarded the “PPM” position in 1998. The 1999 document that removed the “PPM” position from…
Read More1462 Morgan v. Local Union 832
We are not confronted with the question whether the Union could have persuaded an arbitrator to enforce Morgan’s right to bump into the Packer/Stocker position over Management’s objection. The record supports the conclusion that but for the Local President’s intervention Morgan would have been allowed to bump into the Packer/Stocker position. We find, however that…
Read More1509 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 accept the Company’s interpretation amounted…
Read More1526 & 1542 Donovan et al. v. UAW Ford Dept.
Once the membership of Local 2000 voted to reject Vice President Bantom’s recommendation that it combine Units 1 and 2 for purposes of conducting its triennial election, there was no Constitutional basis for Bantom’s insistence that it do so. Nevertheless, the Union’s error in insisting that Local 2000 conduct its triennial elections as one unit…
Read More1535 Eardley v. Local Union 1112
Eardley complains that WEMR’s are being allowed to bring their skilled-trades seniority into the Electrician classification to the disadvantage of Electricians. The WEMR and the Electrician classification are related in this location, so time spent in the WEMR classification is the equivalent of time spent in the Electrician classification. The decision of the Union and…
Read More1539 Harmon v. Region 1A
The Union has demonstrated that its interpretation of the tie breaker provision is consistent with the language of the applicable collective bargaining agreements and the past practice at this location.
Read More1551 Aston v. Local Union 1714
The 2003 Local Agreement between GM-MFD and UAW Local 1714 introduced the team concept to this location and merged the classifications in the Material Handling Department into one overtime equalization group. It was reasonable for the Representatives of Local 1714 to conclude that the 2003 Local Agreement did not require them to abandon a settlement…
Read More1579 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 rights. This Board is precluded…
Read More