There had been an Arbitration decision before concerning Roadway and cellphones....thought you might like to review it?.....KK
(4) The Union's position is that on May 27, 1997, Bob Davidson, Roadway Express, sent an inter-office memorandum to the Southern Division District Managers and Labor Mangers. Roadway Inter-office Memo - Date: May 2 7, 1997, To: District Mangers Southern Division, From: Bob Davidson, Subject: Cellular Telephones. Cellular, telephones are not allowed in the workplace. They should not be on your person and/or used while on the dock violation of this policy will subject you to disciplinary action. The obvious purpose of the interoffice memo is to prohibit the use or possession of cellular phones while at the workplace.
On or about June 9, the respective terminal managers posted the bulletin in the various terminals to inform the employees not to have or use the cellular phones. The bulletins were posted on different dates and when the Local Union became aware of the bulletins, properly protested them in the form of grievances at each location. It should also be noted that the directive sent out by Bob Davidson, (Union exhibit 4), to Southern Division District Managers, is an inconsistent policy, as several areas in the south do not have this policy in effect. Locations such as Nashville, Tennessee; San Antonio, Texas; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; just to name a few. Inconsistent application makes one immediately think of the landmark decision that was articulated by Arbitrator Daugherty in Enterprise Wire Arbitration Case 46, LA 359 (1066).
The Company would lead you to believe that operating a motor vehicle (truck) and using an electronic device such as a cellular phone, poses a safety threat. The Local Union would point out the positive uses of the cellular phones:
1. They do not pose a threat in the workplace, such as knives, handguns, etc.
2. The are not prohibited by any agency, nor are they in violation of a federal, state or local regulation. The only exception would be if you area flying below 10,000 feet.
3. It can and is useful incases of emergencies, such as accidents or observing violation of the law and being able to call 911. What better advertisement is there that the general public was assisted by a Roadway driver, by calling an ambulance or police on his cell phone.
4. Cell phones aid in personal family emergencies, I.E.: wives in labor, children injured, passing of a family member, etc. The list is endless of the possibilities. The Company would use the argument that their trucks have radios installed (Motorola) The truth is, some of the radios were either missing or not operational. Another benefit is being at a pickup or delivery and being delayed with no phones available or radio not operational or in a dead zone.Cell phones would definitely enhance the drivers ability to communicate with the employer for operation direction. Last but not least, the employee has two (2) personal breaks and a lunch period to do as he wishes as it is not illegal or places the equipment or public in danger.
The Company's position is this grievance is simply a protest of a posted work rule at our St. Petersburg, Florida terminal. The rule involves the use of cellular telephones while at work. (See exhibit 1). Article 42, Section 8 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which covers this terminal, clearly allow the Company to post and enforce work rules of this nature (See exhibit 2). The only limitation as defined by the Labor Agreement, is that the rule does not conflict with the provisions of the Labor Agreement. This is the only limitation. This work rule does not in any way conflict with the provisions of the Labor Agreement. On this point alone, the Union's request to have the rule removed should be denied.
The grievance in this particular case is asking the Company to allow employees to have their own personal cellular phones in their possession in case of emergencies (See exhibit 3 )). Of course, this is not a requirement of the Labor Agreement or we wouldn't be here with this issue. The remedy sought is improper. There are adequate systems in place to deal with emergencies anyway. Again, the remedy sought is improper.
In summary, it is the Company's position that the posted work rule is proper. It does not conflict with the provisions of the contract, therefore the work rules is reasonable. No further justification is required by this Labor Agreement. DECISION: BULLETIN IS PROPER. Case No. 1, Arbitration Hearings, December 9,1997; Local 79 v. Roadway Express.
