What's new

ABF | Uniform Grievance

canaryinthemine

canaryinthemine

Retirement....The Job I Was Born To Have!
Credits
0
The grievance on use of a non-Union vendor,.....and uniforms made in Guatemala/Honduras/China/Mexico,....instead of American manufacturers,.....was heard at the July ERJAC panel. It still is an ongoing case. ABF made a point of order , claiming the case was improper before the Panel. The Point of Order now has to go to the National Panel,......held in September,......for a ruling,....then, once the ruling is made, be re-scheduled for the next ERJAC panel. These are the facts as I know them.
 
canaryinthemine said:
ABF made a point of order , claiming the case was improper before the Panel.
Click to expand...
If it does not belong before that panel where are they claiming it belongs? And in the meantime is it being filed with what they deem the appropriate panel is? ERJAC, is that still Ernie's?
 
ERJAC is still Ernie's, yes.....Apparently the company was not very helpful as to where the grievance should be heard...........I gather they would prefer it be heard at the bottom of the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean,.................or maybe Demios or Phobus,....one of the two moons of the Planet Mars......Anyplace but a Grievance Hearing panel............
 
canaryinthemine said:
ERJAC is still Ernie's, yes.....Apparently the company was not very helpful as to where the grievance should be heard...........I gather they would prefer it be heard at the bottom of the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean,.................or maybe Demios or Phobus,....one of the two moons of the Planet Mars......Anyplace but a Grievance Hearing panel............
Click to expand...
OK...but...where it should be heard should really not come into question...who the **** is doing what? Couldn't Ernie shut down that point of order and move on with the case???
 
If ABF loses the grievance what all will be done? I'm sure they will have to use a U.S. manufacturer that is union but what else will they have to do? No snark in this question just honestly interested and curious...
 
Songremainsthesame said:
If ABF loses the grievance what all will be done? I'm sure they will have to use a U.S. manufacturer that is union but what else will they have to do? No snark in this question just honestly interested and curious...
Click to expand...
Only time will tell. I'm keeping an eye on it.
 
Songremainsthesame said:
If ABF loses the grievance what all will be done? I'm sure they will have to use a U.S. manufacturer that is union but what else will they have to do? No snark in this question just honestly interested and curious...
Click to expand...
Too much money for ABF to lose. I don't know a thing about this grievance but the 1 thing I do know. Money & a big cost to ABF if they lose. Maybe a new hunting lodge for the back stabbing degenerates. They can write it off on their monthly expense report, just like they have written us off.
 
ABFer said:
OK...but...where it should be heard should really not come into question...who the :censored: is doing what? Couldn't Ernie shut down that point of order and move on with the case???
Click to expand...
Ummmm......Yes, they could've ruled that the point of order was irrelevant,....... I would guess it would be up to the company to provide a good reason as to why it shouldn't be heard there, and where it should be heard. I gather that ABF is saying they're...... "complying"........ with Art. 12 , in their eyes, and the grievance shouldn't exist. As to the future,.....if the grievance is won, it will be won on the fact that ABF didn't comply with Art. 12 until after the implementation, only then did they get authorization to impose conditions , and that since they didn't seek authority prior to mandating uniforms, and that they set their own conditions, ignoring Art.12,.,...that the uniform program ,until they comply ,.....is no longer mandatory, and we cannot get disciplined for what we wear to work,...,.......OR,,...,some Teamster official or panel will have to sign off on use of the worst non-Union abusive vendor in America, disbursing uniforms made in Third World sweatshops, and allow one of their largest Union carriers to force these conditions on their employees. A little embarrassing, especially in light of Mr.Hoffa's " Bring Jobs Back To America " campaign..... Hey ! ....I just realized that "Hoffa" and " Hypocrite" both begin with "H".......
 
canaryinthemine said:
Ummmm......Yes, they could've ruled that the point of order was irrelevant,....... I would guess it would be up to the company to provide a good reason as to why it shouldn't be heard there, and where it should be heard. I gather that ABF is saying they're...... "complying"........ with Art. 12 , in their eyes, and the grievance shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...
That's an argument to be made before the committee whilst defending their position.

Direct from Article 12 of our 'contract':
Said uniforms shall be made in the United States by union vendors, if possible, and will have the Teamster emblem appropriately applied.
Click to expand...

And as for Article 7,
LOCAL AND AREA GRIEVANCE MACHINERY
Click to expand...
(b) All grievances arising under the provisions of the Master
Agreement (Articles 1-39) shall be filed directly with the appropri-
ate Regional Joint Area Committee. The Regional Joint Area
Committee shall have the authority to render a final and binding
decision or direct the grievance to the appropriate lower level com-
mittee for hearing if the grievance is not properly claimed under the
provisions of the Master Agreement
Click to expand...
So...what the hell is the problem with our 'union'? Brother canaryinthemine, I know that you are a staunch supporter of our union and unions in general but at what point do you lose faith in what we have/are? I know it's not the union, it's the union leadership but cases like this are downright disheartening and disappointing. I can tell you right now that I'm embarrassed by the whole organization, top to bottom and if I was on the outside looking in I would want no parts of it...and apparently I am not alone. I would love to get my hands on that transcript and see what all transpired because I am not believing that you were competently represented. I don't know if it's your local guys or the committee but this one should not have been pushed anywhere else. :confused1:
 
ABFer said:
That's an argument to be made before the committee whilst defending their position.

Direct from Article 12 of our 'contract':
The four Locals in our Joint Council all filed Art. 12 grievances together,....that way one Local, or set of Local officers couldn't be singled out as " troublemakers",.......so lt's not our Local leadership....... When you have national contracts negotiated with the words " no corroboration" just after the word "discipline", it kind of gives you the feeling that this contract was dictated by one side, and hurredly agreed to by the other side,.....because they had more important things to do other than to negotiate contracts for pesky, stinky freight haulers.......Priorities, you know......

And as for Article 7,


So...what the hell is the problem with our 'union'? Brother canaryinthemine, I know that you are a staunch supporter of our union and unions in general but at what point do you lose faith in what we have/are? I know it's not the union, it's the union leadership but cases like this are downright disheartening and disappointing. I can tell you right now that I'm embarrassed by the whole organization, top to bottom and if I was on the outside looking in I would want no parts of it...and apparently I am not alone. I would love to get my hands on that transcript and see what all transpired because I am not believing that you were competently represented. I don't know if it's your local guys or the committee but this one should not have been pushed anywhere else. :confused1:
Click to expand...
 
What joint council / locals are involved? I was under the impression that the words when possible was there way out of using American garment makers... Was also under the impression that the Ibt signed off on this.. Is that not factual? Said uniforms shall be made in the United States by union vendors, if possible, and will have the Teamster emblem appropriately applied.
 
hoffa said:
What joint council / locals are involved? I was under the impression that the words when possible was there way out of using American garment makers... Was also under the impression that the Ibt signed off on this.. Is that not factual? Said uniforms shall be made in the United States by union vendors, if possible, and will have the Teamster emblem appropriately applied.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true, Brother. They're hanging their hat on the words "If possible" as far as the country of manufacture goes for the uniforms. Do you have any Teamster apparel? Check the label,..........Every piece of clothing ANY Union promotes, sells , or gives out is made in America, by Union manufacturers.......So,.....it's "possible"......Very possible. As far as the company's choice of vendor,....Well,...we compiled a list of at least 20 companies,...big and small,.....who are predominately, if not completely,....using Union labor. ABF's choice of Cintas,....whose reputation as far as Union organization and worker's rights go,.....is unsavory, to say the least. In fact, the United Needle Trades puts them right at the very top of their "Naughty" list. We had a company official say that Cintas has Union employees,........They have 300 Union employees out of 30,000,.......and I suspect they are Union so that the company can gain access to other companies who are staunchly Union, and will not let a non-Union vendor on site.....The letter from the IBT authorizing ABF to start a mandatory Uniform program was dated roughly a month after the Uniform program started,.....and in the same week we filed the grievances. It states that ABF must comply with the provisions of ART.12, and does not specifically give them a pass on either vendor or manufacturer. The company's Big Argument is......cost. This is the same company that forced a cut-rate contract on their employees because they were going "broke"......If that's the case, don't you think the company has other pressing issues more important than......uniforms? How about restoration of vacations, at least,.......to attract new employees? As one example, wouldn't that be more important than an expensive uniform program? Art. 12 doesn't say anything about cost. It merely states the conditions a company must comply with IF they want a "mandatory" uniform program. ABF's old uniform program wasn't mandatory,........it was discriminatory toward certain parts of the seniority list, and the company could,......and certainly did,......use the cheapest manufacturer, and materials available,.......all in order to escape placing the Teamster emblem on their uniforms.........in my opinion, a shoddy runaround of Art. 12 for several years. Joint Council #40, Locals, 30, 110, and 249......By the way,......I'm not conversing with the real "hoffa", am I? I notice your unusual screen name and I'm curious......
 
canaryinthemine said:
Yes, that's true, Brother. They're hanging their hat on the words "If possible" as far as the country of manufacture goes for the uniforms. Do you have any Teamster apparel? Check the label,..........Every piece of clothing ANY Union promotes, sells , or gives out is made in America, by Union manufacturers.......So,.....it's "possible"......Very possible. As far as the company's choice of vendor,....Well,...we compiled a list of at least 20 companies,...big and small,.....who are predominately, if not completely,....using Union labor. ABF's choice of Cintas,....whose reputation as far as Union organization and worker's rights go,.....is unsavory, to say the least. In fact, the United Needle Trades puts them right at the very top of their "Naughty" list. We had a company official say that Cintas has Union employees,........They have 300 Union employees out of 30,000,.......and I suspect they are Union so that the company can gain access to other companies who are staunchly Union, and will not let a non-Union vendor on site.....The letter from the IBT authorizing ABF to start a mandatory Uniform program was dated roughly a month after the Uniform program started,.....and in the same week we filed the grievances. It states that ABF must comply with the provisions of ART.12, and does not specifically give them a pass on either vendor or manufacturer. The company's Big Argument is......cost. This is the same company that forced a cut-rate contract on their employees because they were going "broke"......If that's the case, don't you think the company has other pressing issues more important than......uniforms? How about restoration of vacations, at least,.......to attract new employees? As one example, wouldn't that be more important than an expensive uniform program? Art. 12 doesn't say anything about cost. It merely states the conditions a company must comply with IF they want a "mandatory" uniform program. ABF's old uniform program wasn't mandatory,........it was discriminatory toward certain parts of the seniority list, and the company could,......and certainly did,......use the cheapest manufacturer, and materials available,.......all in order to escape placing the Teamster emblem on their uniforms.........in my opinion, a shoddy runaround of Art. 12 for several years. Joint Council #40, Locals, 30, 110, and 249......By the way,......I'm not conversing with the real "hoffa", am I? I notice your unusual screen name and I'm curious......
Click to expand...
No! I am not the Hoffa! When I originally signed up on this site I was just in a hurry to pick a handle... I did use a lower case h, does that help.. Lol although I was a original supporter in the 90's I have not been one for years now.. I have seen the light! I would like to change it.. Thanks for your response, I hate these mandatory uniform policy and hope for the best..
 
These uniforms are NOT popular at my barn. What is the general consensus of your barn? We are hearing from our mgmt we are the only ones in the country bitching about them.. Apparently not.... Lol
 
hoffa said:
These uniforms are NOT popular at my barn. What is the general consensus of your barn? We are hearing from our mgmt we are the only ones in the country bitching about them.. Apparently not.... Lol
Click to expand...
I like the shorts...
 
Everyone mistakes us for R & L drivers,.......The uniforms , in themselves,...are O.K.......I could've done without the goofy pockets on the cargo pants. I'd like a more tailored look,......Surprisingly,...I'm kind of fastidious in how I look. I don't wear shorts,.....at work,.....and if we didn't have uniforms, I would be wearing a pressed button-down shirt. I weekly shine my work oxfords........So,....now that you've heard my strange peccadilloes about work and dress,.....I guess I would say that the uniforms,...being mandatory,....make my skin crawl because I know they were manufactured by people who haven't basic worker"s rights,....and maybe not even basic human rights,.....And they're being delivered by people whose employer actively denies them the right to organize,....or speak up,....which would both be violations of their employee's First Amendment rights. Their employer disdains Unions,.....yet, in true whorish fashion,...will deliver uniforms with a mandated Union emblem on them,....because, apparently,....the price is right. The Almighty Dollar speaks with a loud voice,....and, of course,...everyone has their price. Since you can't quantify Morals into dollars and cents,.....Morals,....in a capitalist world,....are to be sneered at,.....no money in "Morals". I'm sure the company officials are wringing their hands over how much a potential grievance would....."cost".....them. But,....No one on the company side has asked me,.....the person wearing the sweatshop-made, scabbo-delivered uniforms,......if it has cost me any pangs about violating my Morals and Principles,....about using sweatshops and scabs ,...to decorate my body,.....for the company's benefit. That......."cost".....doesn't even enter their mind,....all cluttered up with dollars and cents so there's no room for Moral Principles,.............Good Christian company,....at least as long as the ledger balances..........
 
ABFer said:
That's an argument to be made before the committee whilst defending their position.

Direct from Article 12 of our 'contract':


And as for Article 7,


So...what the hell is the problem with our 'union'? Brother canaryinthemine, I know that you are a staunch supporter of our union and unions in general but at what point do you lose faith in what we have/are? I know it's not the union, it's the union leadership but cases like this are downright disheartening and disappointing. I can tell you right now that I'm embarrassed by the whole organization, top to bottom and if I was on the outside looking in I would want no parts of it...and apparently I am not alone. I would love to get my hands on that transcript and see what all transpired because I am not believing that you were competently represented. I don't know if it's your local guys or the committee but this one should not have been pushed anywhere else. :confused1:
Click to expand...
 
ketch-up said:
Is the uniform company non-union?
Click to expand...
Ummm,.....Well,..Yeah! Brother,...Type in "Union Avoidance Cintas"...........and prepare to be disgusted by the heavy-handed tactics, reminiscent of Germany in 1939,....that are perpetrated on employees at Cintas who try to organize...........And you thought Wal-Mart was brutal......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top