Really??? Challenge and lose about Dockworkers not being included???
It's you pro-union guys that originally wanted to include the Dockworkers which is why you had them signing cards in the beginning but only pulled them when the company, and the NLRB, ruled you MUST include the part time Dockworkers. We know you have enough cards signed now from the full timers to petition, we also know why you haven't! Good luck trying to turn the part timers as we continue to turn the full timers!
Currently, only management has personal emails on file with the company.
I think most companies DO stand up to the union by keeping them out of company meetings. Also, I don't recall anyone ever being escorted out of a company meeting for disagreeing with the speaker.....as I've often heard about the union meetings. If drivers talked to and treated the speakers at the union halls the way you pro-union guys did at these companies meetings, I'm sure they would've endured more than just being escorted out!
Hmmm, wrong again. Our organizers do not want to include the dockworkers in our petition. We decided early on to start with drivers and assist dockworkers later if they want to be part of the union. Here is the decision against FedEx for trying to say dockworkers should be included.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FOURTH REGION
FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.
Employer
and Case 05-RC-1366731
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 5922
Petitioner
REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
If a petitioner seeks to represent a unit of employees that is readily identifiable as a group
and shares a community of interest, the unit will be found appropriate unless a party seeking a
broader unit demonstrates that the employees it seeks to add share an overwhelming community
of interest with the employees in the petitioned-for unit. The Petitioner, Teamsters Local 592,
filed a petition to represent a unit of City Drivers and Road Drivers employed by the Employer at
its Richmond Terminal located in Chester, Virginia.3 The Employer contends that this unit is
inappropriate because it excludes the Employer's Dockworkers.
A Hearing Officer of the Board held a hearing at which a series of stipulated facts and
exhibits were admitted into evidence. The parties' Stipulation of Facts adopts significant
portions of the record in the hearing in Case 04-RC-133959 involving a petition filed by
Teamsters Local 107 to represent a similar unit at another one of the Employer's facilities. The
parties stipulated their request that the briefs filed in Case 04-RC-133959 should be considered
as if filed in this case, and the parties submitted additional briefs in this case. I have considered
the evidence and the arguments presented by the parties, and because the City Drivers and Road
Drivers constitute a readily identifiable group and share a community of interest, I have
concluded that the petitioned-for unit is appropriate and that the Employer has failed to meet its
burden to show that they share an overwhelming community of interest with the Dockworkers.
1 By Order dated September 25, 2014, the General Counsel transferred this case to Region 4 for
decision.
2 The name of the Petitioner appears as corrected at the hearing.
3 The petition sought "Freight Road and City Drivers," but as the record establishes that the
correct names for these job classifications are City Drivers and Road Drivers, those titles are
used herein.
1
