What's new

FedEx Freight | Union centers NOT getting new vacation pay rate.

For the last time, this thread is not about contract negotiations or the union drive. I am respectfully warning those who insist on pushing their luck on this topic that if the discussion continues, I will be PMing Smokestack to have this thread locked.

We do not need another devolution.
 
Getting back ON TOPIC. I think the following applies, specifically to the topic at hand.

Perhaps someone local might like to provide the details?

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-CA-192054


FedEx Freight, Inc.
Case Number: 10-CA-192054
Location: Charlotte, NC
Date Filed: 01/27/2017
Region Assigned: Region 10, Atlanta, Georgia
Status: Open
Docket Activity
Date Document Issued/Filed By
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charging Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charged Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
01/27/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

Allegations
  • 8(a)(5) Repudiation/Modification of Contract [Sec 8(d)/Unilateral Changes]
  • 8(a)(3) Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment
  • 8(a)(5) Refusal to Bargain/Bad Faith Bargaining (incl'g surface bargaining/direct dealing)
 
Last edited:
SwampRatt said:
Getting back ON TOPIC. I think the following applies, specifically to the topic at hand.

Perhaps someone local might like to provide the details?

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-CA-192054


FedEx Freight, Inc.
Case Number: 10-CA-192054
Location: Charlotte, NC
Date Filed: 01/27/2017
Region Assigned: Region 10, Atlanta, Georgia
Status: Open
Docket Activity
Date Document Issued/Filed By
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charging Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charged Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
01/27/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

Allegations
  • 8(a)(5) Repudiation/Modification of Contract [Sec 8(d)/Unilateral Changes]
  • 8(a)(3) Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment
  • 8(a)(5) Refusal to Bargain/Bad Faith Bargaining (incl'g surface bargaining/direct dealing)
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
SwampRatt said:
Getting back ON TOPIC. I think the following applies, specifically to the topic at hand.

Perhaps someone local might like to provide the details?

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-CA-192054


FedEx Freight, Inc.
Case Number: 10-CA-192054
Location: Charlotte, NC
Date Filed: 01/27/2017
Region Assigned: Region 10, Atlanta, Georgia
Status: Open
Docket Activity
Date Document Issued/Filed By
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charging Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charged Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
01/27/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

Allegations
  • 8(a)(5) Repudiation/Modification of Contract [Sec 8(d)/Unilateral Changes]
  • 8(a)(3) Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment
  • 8(a)(5) Refusal to Bargain/Bad Faith Bargaining (incl'g surface bargaining/direct dealing)
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly Red knows something, but I think he decided he was done with this thread lest he land himself in trouble.

All I will say on the subject is that it shouldn't come as a surprise that a complaint was filed.
 
Canadian Flyer said:
Undoubtedly Red knows something, but I think he decided he was done with this thread lest he land himself in trouble.

All I will say on the subject is that it shouldn't come as a surprise that a complaint was filed.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, will you also withdraw your complaint, when it turns out that the above case is directly related to the original post and topic?

:rulz:
:popcorn:
 
SwampRatt said:
With all due respect, will you also withdraw your complaint, when it turns out that the above case is directly related to the original post and topic?

:rulz:
:popcorn:
Click to expand...
Wasn't complaining, my friend. Merely making an observation. Had I been complaining directly about the content of your post, I assure you that I would have been less vague about it.

My only goal here is to prevent another devolution where people start taking shots at one another over their views on the subject matter. I want a proper discussion as much as anyone else, the topical issue is merely what Smokestack has set as his yardstick.

If what you've posted is related, there's no concerns. That said, I can't help but notice that you are posting on a presumption, without presentation of why this is related. I'm waiting to see before judging myself.

My mention of a complaint was merely referring to the case itself.
 
Last edited:
Canadian Flyer said:
Wasn't complaining, my friend. Merely making an observation. Had I been complaining directly about the content of your post, I assure you that I would have been less vague about it.

My only goal here is to prevent another devolution where people start taking shots at one another over their views on the subject matter. I want a proper discussion as much as anyone else, the topical issue is merely what Smokestack has set as his yardstick.

If what you've posted is related, there's no concerns. That said, I can't help but notice that you are posting on a presumption, without presentation of why this is related. I'm waiting to see before judging myself.

My mention of a complaint was merely referring to the case itself.
Click to expand...
Understood. You know I'm generally reluctant to post without absolute proof. That is why the hope for local clarification.

Very reliable sources say this case speaks specifically, but not exclusively, to the vacation benefit topic. Documentation will come soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of the context of the ULP, I for one am glad it was brought to everyone's attention. I feel it is a valuable update on the goings-on of the Union Centers.
 
SwampRatt said:
Getting back ON TOPIC. I think the following applies, specifically to the topic at hand.

Perhaps someone local might like to provide the details?

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-CA-192054


FedEx Freight, Inc.
Case Number: 10-CA-192054
Location: Charlotte, NC
Date Filed: 01/27/2017
Region Assigned: Region 10, Atlanta, Georgia
Status: Open
Docket Activity
Date Document Issued/Filed By
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charging Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charged Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
01/27/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

Allegations
  • 8(a)(5) Repudiation/Modification of Contract [Sec 8(d)/Unilateral Changes]
  • 8(a)(3) Changes in Terms and Conditions of Employment
  • 8(a)(5) Refusal to Bargain/Bad Faith Bargaining (incl'g surface bargaining/direct dealing)
Click to expand...
The NLRB has issued a dismissal letter on this case, thus siding with the company and finding the ULP filed by Local 71 to be invalid...

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/10-CA-192054

FedEx Freight, Inc.
Case Number: 10-CA-192054
Location: Charlotte, NC
Date Filed: 01/27/2017
Region Assigned: Region 10, Atlanta, Georgia
Status: Open
Docket Activity
Date Document Issued/Filed By
03/28/2017 Dismissal Letter* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charging Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Initial Letter to Charged Party* NLRB - GC
01/30/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer* Charging Party
01/27/2017 Signed Charge Against Employer*

...it seems our "dumb 'ole company attorneys" knew what they were doing after all!!
 
You thought it would be different. They think they are union but no contract. No one to bargain with. You can't force FedEx to the table. All these terminals that went union won't get anything. People tried to tell them but they believed the union.
 
bigdaddybibbs said:
You thought it would be different. They think they are union but no contract. No one to bargain with. You can't force FedEx to the table. All these terminals that went union won't get anything. People tried to tell them but they believed the union.
Click to expand...
No, I knew it was just a frivolous ULP.
Not completely true...the conpany and the locals have been at the negotiating table in CLT and EPH for 10 months now so they are "at the table". Now, they can't "force" the company to agree to anything because they have no leverage...that's a fact!!
Yes, people did try to tell them but they chose to drink the union kool-aid and buy into their propaganda.
 
bigdaddybibbs said:
You thought it would be different. They think they are union but no contract. No one to bargain with. You can't force FedEx to the table. All these terminals that went union won't get anything. People tried to tell them but they believed the union.
Click to expand...
Redracer3136 said:
Yes, people did try to tell them but they chose to drink the union kool-aid and buy into their propaganda.
Click to expand...

Quite a lot more to the story. I'm not about to get hung up on reminding everyone of the details. But most know there was more to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top