I give them credit for making the attempt. I would be curious to know how the case was presented. Is that a matter of public record? The above doesn't tell us very much at all, beyond the result.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
DateDocument 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!!
FedEx Freight | Union centers NOT getting new vacation pay rate.
- Thread starter FedexFool
- Start date
Why would the union centers get the new rate? I would think that's negotiable like everything else to a union center
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
Click the link I provided for EPH, their dismissal letter has been made public. Although ours hasn't...yet, I'm sure it will probably read about the same.
https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45823cd113
Last edited:
Thanks Red. Kind of interesting. It does give some hint as to the case presented, and why he disagreed. I still wish I could see the actual complaint filed.
I didn't realize one person, DENNIS P. WALSH (Regional Director), made the decision.
High points:
"Changing the vacation rate in these circumstances was not part of the historical status quo. This was the first known occasion of such a change."
"Generally, an employer may decline to grant an otherwise first-time company-wide benefit to unionized employees. In essence, an employer may treat unionized and non-unionized employees differently absent evidence of antiunion animus and unlawful motivation"
Your Right to Appeal:
"You may appeal my decision to the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, through the Office of Appeals. If you appeal, you may use the enclosed Appeal Form, which is also available at www.nlrb.gov. However, you are encouraged to also submit a complete statement of the facts and reasons why you believe my decision was incorrect."
Appeal Due Date: The appeal is due on April 10, 2017
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
That's funny, I found the "high points" to be...
"The investigation disclosed that on August 17, 2016, the Employer notified the Union that it planned to change the way the vacation rate is calculated for its city drivers nationwide effective January 2017. The email invited discussion and did not indicate that it was a bargaining proposal."
Meaning, the company notified the union of the upcoming change...notified, NOT a proposal...important to note!!
"In a follow-up email on August 21, before the parties met and before the Union weighed in on the vacation rate issue, the Employer expressly stated: “The vacation rate change has been communicated to you for notification purposes only. We will maintain the status quo and bargain on this issue in the normal course of bargaining.”
Again, the company sent a follow up email to ensure they knew this was just a notification, NOT a proposal!!
"When the Union presented a signed copy of the August 17 email at the next bargaining session on August 23 as an attempt to “accept” the vacation rate change, the Employer said again that it was not offering the change to unit employees, but would maintain the status quo and discuss the issue during negotiations."
So, after being notified twice by the company, the union attorneys showed up at the next negotiations meeting with a signed copy of the email
and "attempted" to accept the rate change, even though no proposal had been made!!"Thus, at no time was there a meeting of the minds or agreement on the issue. Under Board law, an employer is obligated during negotiations to maintain terms and conditions of employment and observe the status quo, absent agreement or impasse on the contract as a whole."
This is exactly what the company did.
"Changing the vacation rate in these circumstances was not part of the historical status quo. This was the first known occasion of such a change. Nor was the change the result of a regular recurring event that would have required the Employer to give notice and opportunity to bargain, and then would have allowed implementation before agreement or impasse on the contract as a whole. As such, when the Employer declined to change the vacation rate for bargaining unit city drivers in January 2017, it was observing its lawful duty to maintain the status quo. The evidence does not establish that the Employer ever proposed the change for bargaining unit city drivers, or pulled back on any tentative agreement. There was no agreement
to make the change, so no change was required."
Exactly what we claimed, this is a new benefit so it must be negotiated.
"Turning to the allegation that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by failing to implement the vacation rate change for bargaining unit city drivers, the investigation disclosed no evidence that the Employer was motivated by antiunion animus. Generally, an employer may decline to grant an otherwise first-time company-wide benefit to unionized employees. In essence, an employer may treat unionized and non-unionized employees differently absent evidence of antiunion animus and unlawful motivation."
NO antiunion animus was evident!!
bigtruk_us
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
I think that was answered by Capt.Obvious..all employees who voted knew what would happen
silent trucker
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 411
They voted to negotiate from scratch. They voted to start with a blank slate. Dumb. Just dumb.
That's funny, I found the "high points" to be...
"The investigation disclosed that on August 17, 2016, the Employer notified the Union that it planned to change the way the vacation rate is calculated for its city drivers nationwide effective January 2017. The email invited discussion and did not indicate that it was a bargaining proposal."
Meaning, the company notified the union of the upcoming change...notified, NOT a proposal...important to note!!
"In a follow-up email on August 21, before the parties met and before the Union weighed in on the vacation rate issue, the Employer expressly stated: “The vacation rate change has been communicated to you for notification purposes only. We will maintain the status quo and bargain on this issue in the normal course of bargaining.”
Again, the company sent a follow up email to ensure they knew this was just a notification, NOT a proposal!!
"When the Union presented a signed copy of the August 17 email at the next bargaining session on August 23 as an attempt to “accept” the vacation rate change, the Employer said again that it was not offering the change to unit employees, but would maintain the status quo and discuss the issue during negotiations."
So, after being notified twice by the company, the union attorneys showed up at the next negotiations meeting with a signed copy of the email
"Thus, at no time was there a meeting of the minds or agreement on the issue. Under Board law, an employer is obligated during negotiations to maintain terms and conditions of employment and observe the status quo, absent agreement or impasse on the contract as a whole."
This is exactly what the company did.
"Changing the vacation rate in these circumstances was not part of the historical status quo. This was the first known occasion of such a change. Nor was the change the result of a regular recurring event that would have required the Employer to give notice and opportunity to bargain, and then would have allowed implementation before agreement or impasse on the contract as a whole. As such, when the Employer declined to change the vacation rate for bargaining unit city drivers in January 2017, it was observing its lawful duty to maintain the status quo. The evidence does not establish that the Employer ever proposed the change for bargaining unit city drivers, or pulled back on any tentative agreement. There was no agreement
to make the change, so no change was required."
Exactly what we claimed, this is a new benefit so it must be negotiated.
"Turning to the allegation that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by failing to implement the vacation rate change for bargaining unit city drivers, the investigation disclosed no evidence that the Employer was motivated by antiunion animus. Generally, an employer may decline to grant an otherwise first-time company-wide benefit to unionized employees. In essence, an employer may treat unionized and non-unionized employees differently absent evidence of antiunion animus and unlawful motivation."
NO antiunion animus was evident!!
Looks like you were very pleased with it in it's entirety. Even though, as a road driver, you are unaffected.
Would you have been equally disappointed had it gone the other way? If so, why?
Will there be an appeal on this decision?
Would there have been an appeal, had it gone the other way?
why degrade someone for trying to get better pay and bennys, If they fail they fail, so what. I for one am tired of the purple BS but have too much time invested to start over somewhere else. Lots of guys in the same boat. If they come out ahead we all do. I say swing for the fences union terminals just my 2 cents
Scratch?
Seems that the "slate" currently has all but one thing the rest of the class has. How can that be called "blank"?
"Under Board law, an employer is obligated during negotiations to maintain terms and conditions of employment and observe the status quo, absent agreement."
Now, the new slate may be partly blank. But if/when completed will be carved in stone. Unlike your current slate which is subject to change.
Just an observation. The rest of the story...
Sex pistol
Never Mind The Bollocks
- Credits
- 0
All this was,was a desperate attempt by the union to get something for nothing. The union was informed that this would have to be negotiated, but the union knew they have nothing to bargain with,so filing a ulp is the only thing they have left to get anything.
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
Pleased with its entirety...certainly, unaffected...how do you figure?? We've all been affected in one way or another.
Certainly. Any victory for the union is a loss for everyone else in the company, IMO.
Probably, it's what the union does. History has shown us that when nearing certain defeat, they continue to hang on with frivolous ULP's and appeals in an attempt to delay the obvious...which is what we fully expect in the upcoming months!! Honestly, do you think everyone was lying to us almost 3 years ago when they said it's easy to get the union in but it's almost impossible to get the union out?? The majority in CLT and EPH are ready to vote the union out and I can say with certainty that these stall tactics used by the union to appease a few will help to drive even more people to our side. It's just a matter of time now, the writing has been on the wall....tick-tock, tick-tock...
Probably. Seems I remember most pro-union guys crying about the company pursuing their due process when this whole thing started, why wouldn't we expect the union to do the same on the back end?? We expect it, we dont cry about it.
It's all politics...at our expense!!
Side Note: we're taking bets on the attendance from CLT drivers at the next "pep rally" down at the hall...the over/under is 17 (not including spouses, friends, or family members) out of 220+ drivers...anybody want in??
Disclaimer: the odds were increased from 12 to 17 because they'll be offering free food.
Crazy Trucker
Busting Clowns daily!!!!
- Credits
- 248
Clowns are back in rare form. Less talk more action from the fail gang how bout that.
Crazy Trucker
Busting Clowns daily!!!!
- Credits
- 248
They should have to negotiate for it no secret. The only people that continue not to recognize this is you and your other clown friends. Is it a good benefit to have the vacation rate yes it is very good, but lets not go over board it's maybe an extra thousand for the people who work alot of overtime and people who accure the most time.
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
In due time, there's rules that restrict when we can act....tick-tock, tick-tock...
Crazy Trucker
Busting Clowns daily!!!!
- Credits
- 248
Lol you all knew about those rules the last time you all failed what was the excuse then??
Cab Lizzard
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 556
Red your magic 8 ball needs new batteries.
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
It seems it's the union attorneys that use a magic eight ball...showing up at negotiations with a "copy of an email" and then signed it in an attempt to accept something that was never offered!!
Where'd they get their degrees, Walmart...along with their magic eight balls????
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
No excuses, you're just not privy to why we do what we do!! Perhaps in due time you'll be made aware and understand...then again, I doubt it!!Lol you all knew about those rules the last time you all failed what was the excuse then??
Cab Lizzard
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 556