Posts Tagged ‘Seniority Issues’
1462 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 More1496 Ray-Barrett and Sanders v. Local Union 652
The new plant uses a system of teams whose members must be able to perform each of the tasks assigned to the team. There were no openings available on any teams that did not include at least one job outside of appellants’ physical restrictions. There is no evidence that the Company discriminated against the appellants…
Read More1511 Espinosa v. Local Union 719
Espinosa was ineligible to serve as Local Union Shop Chairperson because of her status as a temporary employee. She argues that she should no longer be classified as temporary after having worked at Electro-Motive for nine years, but that is a different issue. The Union allowed GM to maintain these employees as temporary in order…
Read More1524 Sasaki v. Local Union 1853
The basis for Sasaki’s appeal is his misunderstanding of a letter written by a GM Department Coordinator to another member concerning the application of the Local seniority agreement. His objection to the Local Union’s failure to restore GM seniority dates to former GM employees at Saturn is clearly untimely and without merit.
Read More1530 Ratkos v. Local Union 651
The Local Union worked out a plan to integrate the transferees from Delphi Livonia and Delphi West into the plant population at Delphi East. The Local JOBS Committee’s authority to make such policy decisions is found in the broad discretion and flexibility recognized by Appendix K to the 2003 UAW-Delphi National Agreement, which allows Local…
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 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 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 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