Posts Tagged ‘Plant closures and placement’
1543 Thomas v. Amalgamated Local Union 155
There was no legal basis for holding the owner of the business personally liable for the Company’s obligations to its six employees and no corporate assets available to pay those obligations. The only legal claim the Union could assert against the owner was that he wrongfully converted payroll deductions for Union dues and employee benefits…Read More
1558 Bellew v. UAW DaimlerChrysler Dept.
Bellew has not identified any contract language that was violated by his placement. The fact that individual employees may have been consulted in the past and allowed to choose between alternative options for placement does not constitute an enforceable past practice. There is no basis in this record for concluding that the NJOES Committee gave…Read More
1571 Shotwell v. UAW GM Dept.
There is no dispute that the Lansing Area Hire Area was expanded in 1993 to include Coopersville. Therefore, under the clear language of Paragraph (96a)(1) of the UAW-GM National Agreement, employees transferring from Coopersville to Lansing were not entitled to a relocation allowance.Read More
1645 Francis v. Local Union 239
The documents distributed to employees prior to the plant closing suggest that an employee could be laid off for up to 24 months without affecting his credited service. We find that Francis’s reliance on those documents was justified. Nevertheless, Francis is not entitled to any further compensation as a result of his reliance on those…Read More
1656 Brayton v. UAW Ford Dept.
There is no provision in the National Agreement that would allow an employee voluntarily to initiate a transfer to another plant with his or her corporate seniority, thereby affecting the standing of employees on the plant seniority list at the new location. Brayton raised a legitimate objection to an agreement to allow two employees to…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
1659 Estrada v. UAW GM Dept.
Estrada’s appeal suggested that the adjustment to his skilled trades date-of-entry advanced the date by eight years. In fact, the adjustment restored credit for three years. Prior to the restoration of GM seniority and skilled trades dates-of-entry for former Saturn employees pursuant to the 2009 modifications to the UAW-GM National Agreement, Estrada cannot have had…Read More
1664 Collins v. UAW GM Dept.
Collins was given incorrect information about the application of Appendix A to his situation when he made his decision to move to Mansfield in 2001. There is no provision in Appendix A that would have allowed Collins to retain his seniority at Parma by foregoing a relocation allowance after accepting a voluntary transfer to Mansfield.…Read More
1665 Lange v. UAW Ford Dept.
Lange lost all recall rights to Ford Motor Company once she broke seniority in 1981. She would have given up her March 9, 1987, Ford Motor Company seniority date if she had transferred back to Rawsonville when the former Rawsonville employees were rehired in 1998. She may have been willing to forfeit her seniority in…Read More
1685 Fisher et al. v. International President
Although its terms were presented to the membership as a grievance settlement, the agreement negotiated for the company’s active employees was simply a plant closing agreement. The membership’s vote to accept this agreement was largely a formality. This was not a grievance arising out of the employer’s contractual obligations to appellants, but an arrangement negotiated…Read More