Posts Tagged ‘Processing of grievances’
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 withdrew the grievance after determining…
Read More1463 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 More1480 Garrish v. UAW GM Dept.
The Skilled Trades Zone Committeeperson reviewed the credentials of the challenged employees and determined that they were qualified for their positions. The GM Department found that the Committeeperson’s decision was rational. Appellants have produced no convincing evidence to contradict that finding.
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 More1531 Nafus v. Region 9
There is no evidence that Nafus’ status as a Beck objector, or his public expressions of dissatisfaction with the Union influenced the Representative’s decision in any way. Nafus’ refusal to sign a waiver that would allow Management to confirm his completion of an anger management program violated the terms of his prior reinstatement agreement. Furthermore,…
Read More1538 Bays v. UAW GM Dept.
The General Motors Department Representative concluded that the sale had taken place as described by the undercover agent based on a detailed analysis of the evidence. His decision was therefore rational; the Union could not expect to prevail at arbitration where substantial evidence supported the charge that such a sale was made.
Read More1541 Helton and Wright v. UAW National Heavy Truck Dept.
The Union had no concrete evidence to refute Management’s conclusion that appellants were responsible for the mistake which caused the line to be shut down, and therefore no contractual basis for challenging the discipline assessed by the Company in connection with the error.
Read More1547 Chester and Golden v. Region 4
Appellants knew in 1990 that less senior employees had been working in the Chip and Grind classification while they were laid off and that the Local Union Chairperson did not intend to grieve the issue. If they disagreed with the Chairperson’s position, they had the right appeal to the membership in accordance with the procedures…
Read More1555 McMillan v. Local Union 659
McMillan was terminated for missing outpatient treatment appointments. Although the Company’s case was weak because the last chance agreement did not explicitly require outpatient care, there were weaknesses in the Union’s case as well. McMillan apparently understood that outpatient care was part of his rehabilitation program, because he made appointments with an outpatient counselor. His…
Read More1558 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