Posts Tagged ‘Rational basis test’
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 More1456 Mitchell v. Local Union 533
The Local Union was justified in its conclusion that Mitchell’s case could not be successfully arbitrated. Mitchell was absent from work for more than three days and could not provide the necessary documentation to support his request for medical leave. The collective bargaining agreement has a provision specifically authorizing the termination of employees who have…
Read More1457 Sparrow v. Local Union 1250
Even after being counseled about the Company’s “Zero Tolerance” Policy, Sparrow commenced a series of offensive and aggressive gestures in August 2000, clearly intended to annoy and threaten his co-worker Lois Bergenstein. Both the words and the gestures were highly offensive, and the sort that could create a hostile working environment for any reasonable person.…
Read More1458 Keith v. Local Union 524
If Keith’s grievance had been taken to arbitration, the arbitrator would have looked at his entire disciplinary record, including the Company’s assertion that he continued to harass another employee after being explicitly told to stop such conduct. In addition, Keith’s record demonstrates that his failure to keep up with production was an ongoing problem rather…
Read More1460 Hamilton v. Region 9
Hamilton’s seniority was terminated pursuant to Paragraph (49) of the DaimlerChrysler National Agreement after he was absent for five days without providing evidence to support the reason for his absence. The Company had given him until February 11, 2000, to file papers certifying his entitlement to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Hamilton…
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 More1478 Combs v. UAW Ford Dept.
Combs worked as a representative in a jointly funded Job Security and Standards Program. The Union could not have taken Combs’ grievance to arbitration to challenge the severity of the discipline assessed because the parties had specifically excluded matters related to the use and operation of computers in jointly funded programs from the Grievance Procedure.…
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 More1483 Moscato v. UAW Ford Dept.
The agreement obtained by the Ford Department was clearly rational, for it provided the only possible means for appellant to obtain the vindication she sought by proving that she had acquired the skills required of a machine technician. It is the Company’s right to determine the qualifications of its employees. If appellant did not establish…
Read More1484 Anderson v. Local Union 659
Anderson’s argument that his truck was improperly loaded did not give the Local Bargaining Committee a means for challenging the Company’s determination that his accident was preventable, because it was Anderson’s responsibility to inspect the load and determine that it was safe. Furthermore, Anderson admitted that he was driving five miles over the speed limit…
Read More