Posts Tagged ‘Retirees’
1805 Thompson v. Duque, President, UAW Local Union 22
Article 6, §19 of the International Constitution entitles members in good standing who retire to obtain “retired membership status.” Article 55, §1 of the Constitution also provides for the formation of retired workers chapters in any local with 25 or more retired members. The question raised by this appeal is what happens to this retiree…Read More
1499 King and Ford v. Local 600 Executive Board
Local 600’s Bylaws assign specific bargaining and grievance handling responsibilities to the Financial Secretary-Treasurer. The International Union’s policy forbidding retirees from holding offices which involve collective bargaining duties applies to any office, not only those described in Article 45. As a retiree, therefore, Bob King was ineligible to run for the office of Local 600…Read More
1534 Pearson v. Local Union 140
In 1999, the International Union adopted a rule that retired members could not run for and hold executive offices that are inextricably involved in the bargaining process, even though they may have been permitted to do so in the past. We do not accept Pearson’s view that the Union is bound to follow past interpretations…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
1589 Grima and Hayosh v. IEB
Candidates in the election had challenged the eligibility of retirees from the former Local 174 to vote in the election. Under the circumstances, the Election Committee should have determined which members were from the old Local Union and issued them challenged ballots. Furthermore, the retirees from the old Local were appointed to the Election Committee…Read More
1594 Gordon v. Local Union 1112
Gordon has not identified any violation of his rights under the collective bargaining agreement or the retirement program. The fact that management chose to retain three employees beyond the mandatory retirement date of July 1, 2006, has no bearing on Gordon’s situation. Appellant’s request for reconsideration was denied.Read More
1617 Baxter v. Local Union 659 Joint Council
The one issue of substance raised by this appeal is whether the notice postponing the election that was posted by the election committee chairperson confused voters to such an extent that the election results did not reflect the will of the electorate. The record demonstrates that the local union responded to the misleading notice within…Read More
1625 Brogdon v. Local Union 719
Brogdon did not postpone his retirement under duress; he postponed it to protect his workers’ compensation benefits. This circumstance had no bearing on the amount of retirement incentive he was entitled to under GM’s Special Attrition Program. There was no contractual basis for Brogdon’s grievance demanding a higher incentive payment than the one he had…Read More
1636 Furby v. UAW Chrysler Dept.
The election to retire was clearly irrevocable. Furthermore, the settlement of Furby’s discharge grievance was manifestly rational in that it provided him with extra benefits offered as an incentive to encourage employees to retire even though he had previously been discharged.Read More
1660 Henderson v. UAW GM Dept.
The fact that disabled retirees may have diminished post-retirement earning capacity is not the result of any inequitable application of pension plan provisions, but rather the result of the disability. There is nothing in the UAW Constitution, the Ethical Practices Codes or the UAW-GM National Agreement that requires the UAW to address or correct this…Read More