804 CAFE is please to announce a new section to the site called THE CIRCLE OF TRUTH. This section is dedicated to just the facts of what goes on everyday that affects us all and how to deal with it. This editorial page will show different sides of certain issues , you will have the Truth and then what you are lead to believe . The best part about this is you as a member get to make you own choices on every matter
Most stewards, business agents and local officers work very hard to provide Teamster members with the best representation possible. But sometimes problems do occur. The best way to resolve complaints is to start as close to the problem as possible. For example, if you have a complaint about your steward, your first call should be to your business agent; if you have a problem with your business agent, you should talk to your local's principal officer.
Business agents generally cover several work sites within the same industry, so he or she will be most aware of what's going on in your workplace and will be familiar with your steward and the issues the steward is facing on a day-to-day basis. The source of your complaint may actually be management. If the business agent is unable to address your concerns, the next call should be to your local. All Teamster locals are autonomous and procedures for dealing with member issues may vary. Some locals may have a staff member assigned to resolving member problems. If that is not the case, ask to speak with your principal officer. You may want to make an appointment or set up a time when you are both free to talk about your complaint. If your local is unable to resolve the matter, you can call the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Legal Department, (202) 624-6945. Only contact the Legal Department if you have exhausted all local options
UNFAIR LABOR PRATICE AND HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN REPRESENTED CORRECTLY
When most people think of labor law violations, they probably think of “Big Business.” But employees, employers, and labor organizations file thousands of charges each year called Unfair Labor Practices against unions and union officials.
An Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) occurs when a union or an employer violates Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. Union members commonly file ULPs against their union because the union failed to fairly represent its members. Employees also file ULPs against union leaders for intimidation, coercion, violence, and many other labor law violations.
The National Labor Relations Board’s annual report for fiscal year 2009 included the number of Unfair Labor Practices alleged against employers and unions. Once again, union officials faced a disproportionately high number of allegations of wrongdoing, when compared to employers. The worst part: The vast majority of allegations said that members were the ones hurt by the union officials that are supposed to protect them.
In 2009, the NLRB reported that:
- Unions faced a total of 6,367 allegations of violating labor law;
- More than 87% of charges against unions were filed by union members;
- 78% of those charges were cases where a union attempted to “restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” by the National Labor Relations Act (Sec.8(b)(1)).
How to File a ULP
To file a ULP against a union, a union member must fill out NLRB Form 508. Be advised that the NLRB doesn’t have jurisdiction to investigate all unfair employment issues. The NLRB will investigate the allegations and either dismiss the case, seek a settlement from the union, or issue a formal complaint. Union members may also withdraw the complaint. If, after filing a complaint, the union refuses to settle the issue, the case will be heard by an Administrative Law Judge. Depending on the outcome, the NLRB will either issue an order or dismiss the case.
The National Labor Relations Board has more information on the Unfair Labor Practice process.
Examples of Unfair Labor Practices by a Union
The National Labor Relations Board provides the following examples of ULPs by unions:
- Mass picketing in such numbers that nonstriking employees are physically barred from entering the plant;
- Acts of force or violence on the picket line, or in connection with a strike;
- Threats to do bodily injury to nonstriking employees;
- Threats to employees that they will lose their jobs unless they support the union’s activities;
- Statement to employees who oppose the union that the employees will lose their jobs if the union wins a majority in the plant ;
- Entering into an agreement with an employer that recognizes the union as exclusive bargaining representative when it has not been chosen by a majority of the employees;
- Fining or expelling members for crossing a picket line that is unlawful under the Act or that violates a no- strike agreement;
- Fining employees for crossing a picket line after they resigned from the union;
- Fining or expelling members for filing unfair labor practice charges with the Board or for participating in an investigation conducted by the Board;
- Refusing to process a grievance in retaliation against an employee’s criticism of union officers;
- Maintaining a seniority arrangement with an employer under which seniority is based on the employee’s prior representation by the union elsewhere;
- Rejecting an application for referral to a job in a unit represented by the union based on the applicant’s race or union activities;
- Causing an employer to discharge employees because they circulated a petition urging a change in the union’s method of selecting shop stewards;
- Causing an employer to discharge employees because they made speeches against a contract proposed by the union;
- Making a contract that requires an employer to hire only members of the union or employees “satisfactory” to the union;
- Causing an employer to reduce employees’ seniority because they engaged in antiunion acts;
- Refusing referral or giving preference on the basis of race or union activities in making job referrals to units represented by the union, and;
- Seeking the discharge of an employee under a union-security agreement for failure to pay a fine levied by the union
HEALTH STUDY ON PACKAGE CAR DRIVERS – THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE TEAMSTERS TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS ON PACKAGE CAR DRIVERS .THE CONCLUSIONS JOB" STRESS IS A SIGNIFICANT HEALTH HAZARD FOR UPS PACKAGE TRUCK DRIVERS . THESE WORKERS SCORED IN THE TOP 91% OF THE POPULATION OF THE GLOBAL STRESS INDEX … REPORTED EXPOSURE HEAT , COLD , NOISE AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS PLACED THEM IN THE 99 PERCENTILE FOR THIS SCALE… THE PACKAGE TRUCK DRIVERS SCORED SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE THE NORM ON ALL THE SUMMARY AND INDIVIDUAL SCALES … INDICATING A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS FOR THIS GROUP … RECOMMENDATIONS A CORPORATE WIDE APPROACH TO THE STUDY AND REDUCTION OF WORKPLACE STRESS FOR PACKAGE TRUCK DRIVERS IS NECESSARY AT UPS . FULL REPORT CLICK LINK BELOW >>>> HOW LONG HAS THIS BEEN GOING ON ???????????
http://pupsinc.homestead.com/Univ_of_IL_study_on_UPS_Package_Car_Drivers.pdf
DRIVER AWARDED 100,000 DOLLARS IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM UPS AFTER BEING FIRED BY UPS FOR REFUSING TO DRIVE UNSAFE EQUIPMENT
The case in reference is about the St. Louis Feeder (Earth City, Mo) driver who refused to pull a trailer without working taillights and side marker lights was John Youngermann v. United Parcel Service. We won that case before OSHA but UPS appealed. Because of the appeal, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Clement Kennington of the U. S. Department of Labor last fall. Judge Kennington issued his decision finding that UPS unlawfully retaliated against John Youngermann by firing him because he refused to drive without taillights, all required side marker lights and both working headlamps. Judge Kennington ordered the following reliif: A. Back pay of $2,122, plus interest (John's firing had been reduced to a suspension).C. Damages for mental pain and emotional distress in the amount of $5,000;D. Punitive Damages of $100,000;E. Attorney fees;F. Posting of a notice of the decision and a notice to employees; and G. Expungement of John's work record. In awarding $100,000 in punitive damages, Judge Kennington said the following: "I find punitive damages appropriate in this case. First, Respondent [UPS} acted with callous disregard for Complainant's rights when it continuuosly instructed him to drive a vehicle in violation of the regulations. In addition, Respondent attempted to convince Complaiannt through misinformation that it was in fact not a violation to drive the truck in its condition. At the very least, Respondent showed a complete disregard for the safety of Complainant [John Youngermann] and the public by continuously instructing Complainant to drive The record in this case shows Respondent [UPS] repeatedly ordered Complainant to drive the truck after he repeatedly stated he did not feel it was legal or safe." If anyone would like a copy of the decision, I am happy to provide. Regards, Paul O. Taylor Truckers Justice Center 900 West 128th Street, Suite 104Burnsville, MN 55337 Tel. No. 651-454-5800
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Coverage Increases
In cases brought to enforce the 1990 ADA law, disabilities has been narrowly defined by the courts. Diabetes and hypertension (high blood pressure) had not been covered even though it disqualified individuals from certain jobs. UPS had been instrumental in obtaining this narrow interpretation by taking Murphy v. UPS to the U.S. Supreme Court. Briefly, that decision allowed UPS to fire a mechanic because of his inability to obtain a DOT physical card, because of hypertension. UPS further argued that because his condition did not have a major effect on his daily life, Murphy was not covered by ADA. Other court decisions similarly decided that diabetes was not a disability. Many of you are aware that insulin dependent diabetes are not allowed DOT cards to drive and UPS terminates employment of those drivers. They do not make reasonable accommodations to move individuals into appropriate jobs. Years ago, however, UPS did find other positions for these UPSers. Many were long-time employees and near retirement age. This injustice is about to be remedied. In January, the ADA Amendment Act (ADAAA) will become law. ADAAA will reverse Murphy v. UPS and other similar cases. Congress will define what they intended in the original law that the courts modified. “Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that because of Supreme Court decisions that interpreted the ADA's coverage in an unduly restrictive manner, the full promise of the 18-year-old legislation has not been realized. “Our intent was to be inclusive; civil rights bills are meant to be interpreted broadly,” said Hoyer, who was a key player in enactment of the original ADA in 1990.” (SOURCE: http://subscript.bna.com/pic2/hr2pic.nsf/id/BNAP-7JRRQE Since previous Supreme Court decisions are to be reversed, it would seem that this law is retroactive to the effective date of the original ADA law. It remains to be seen how this will be played out in court. Seek your own legal council to determine your rights under the new law. Hopefully, this new law will end the shameful termination of employees who are fully capable of working but have the misfortune of illnesses that don't allow them to continue to drive professionally.
This article was written by local 340 , some might find it an intresting read of someone's opnion.
SURVIVOR’S GUIDE TO SURVIVAL AT
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CLICK HERE —->> UPSsurviors-guide