No estimating necessary. It's an even 55 gallons. I buy oil on contract.
Only if I'm running low. My connection only charges me a case of Sundrop...yeah.....not the brightest bulb....
You,re right you guys should be working, I'm retardedYou can tell it's slow on the forum. We're talking about your hat and soda again.
Things may be slow on Truckingboards but they're just getting ramped up at a few centers...I'm sure if you listen hard enough you can hear the pro-union guys in CLTYou can tell it's slow on the forum. We're talking about your hat and soda again.
all the way down at Southeastern!! 
The dismissal letter from the NLRB concerning the frivolous ULP filed by local 71 has finally been made public. Here are a few of the highlights of the decision...
https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45823d5196
"The charge alleges that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to apply a new vacation-pay rate formula toat the Employer’s Charlotte, North Carolina terminal. The investigation disclosed that the parties commenced bargaining for their initial collective-bargaining agreement on June 16, 2016. At the parties’ second bargaining session on July 28, the Employer notified the Union about its intention to provide to its unrepresented employees a scheduled wage increase, health insurance increase, and a new vacation-pay rate formula that was more favorable to employees."
"The Employer emailed the proposed wage increases to the Union on August 17. The Employer also informed the Union that it had told unit employees at the Charlotte terminal that their increases were subject to the bargaining process. The email then detailed the new vacation-pay rate formula scheduled to take effect for unrepresented employees in January 2017. The Employer concluded by telling the Union that it “look[ed] forward to discussing this issue with [the Union] as well.” The Union did not reply to this email."
"The parties met for their third bargaining session on August 20. During this session, the Union presented the Employer with an initialed document that it called a tentative agreement. The Union created the document by cutting and pasting from the Employer’s August 17 email information regarding the wage increase and new vacation-pay rate formula. The Employer immediately informed the Union that the new vacation-pay rate formula was not part of its proposal and was subject to bargaining. The parties engaged in further negotiations regarding the wage and health-insurance increases and reached a tentative agreement on those items. To date, the parties have not reached agreement regarding the application of the new vacation-pay rate formula to the unit.
"The Union contends that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act because it applied the new policy to its unrepresented employees but not is represented employees. It is not unlawful for an employer to treat unionized and nonunionized employees differently when providing new benefits, so long as the disparate treatment is not unlawfully motivated. Arc Bridges, 362 NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 3 (2015)... Here, there is no evidence that the Employer withheld the new vacation-pay rate formula from unit employees because of union animus. The Employer consistently and accurately informed unit employees and the Union that the new vacation pay formula was subject to bargaining. That the Employer initially tested certification does not by itself establish union animus. The Employer has a statutory right to challenge the Board’s certification and an employer may be motivated to do so for reasons having nothing to do with antiunion animus. There is no evidence that the Employer withheld the more favorable vacation-rate formula for antiunion reasons. The evidence establishes instead that the Employer notified the Union of its intention to provide this benefit, the wage increase, and health-insurance increase to unrepresented employees, and offered to bargain with the Union over these same benefits in negotiations with the Union for an overall collective-bargaining agreement."
"The Union also contends that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to apply the vacation-pay rate formula “proposed by FedEx Freight and agreed to by Teamsters Local 71.” The Union contends that the Employer’s August 17 notice of its plan to apply the new formula to unrepresented employees and its offer to bargain over the proposal with the Union was an offer that the Union accepted at the next bargaining session."
So the union copy and pasted an email sent by the company and tried to contest that it was a tentative agreement??
"The Union’s contention is wholly unsupported by the facts. By its plain language, the Employer’s August 17 message was notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain over the benefit it had lawfully chosen to apply to its unrepresented employees. To the extent the Union misunderstood its notice, the Employer made it clear that it had not made an offer, and there was no tentative agreement, immediately upon the Union’s cynical contention that there was.
"Accordingly, I find that the charge lacks merit and I am refusing to issue complaint in this matter."
What's the new rates for pay and healthcare increases? You laughing about vacation that can still be negotiated but you have raises coming kinda ignorant heroThe dismissal letter from the NLRB concerning the frivolous ULP filed by local 71 has finally been made public. Here are a few of the highlights of the decision...
https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45823d5196
"The charge alleges that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to apply a new vacation-pay rate formula toat the Employer’s Charlotte, North Carolina terminal. The investigation disclosed that the parties commenced bargaining for their initial collective-bargaining agreement on June 16, 2016. At the parties’ second bargaining session on July 28, the Employer notified the Union about its intention to provide to its unrepresented employees a scheduled wage increase, health insurance increase, and a new vacation-pay rate formula that was more favorable to employees."
"The Employer emailed the proposed wage increases to the Union on August 17. The Employer also informed the Union that it had told unit employees at the Charlotte terminal that their increases were subject to the bargaining process. The email then detailed the new vacation-pay rate formula scheduled to take effect for unrepresented employees in January 2017. The Employer concluded by telling the Union that it “look[ed] forward to discussing this issue with [the Union] as well.” The Union did not reply to this email."
"The parties met for their third bargaining session on August 20. During this session, the Union presented the Employer with an initialed document that it called a tentative agreement. The Union created the document by cutting and pasting from the Employer’s August 17 email information regarding the wage increase and new vacation-pay rate formula. The Employer immediately informed the Union that the new vacation-pay rate formula was not part of its proposal and was subject to bargaining. The parties engaged in further negotiations regarding the wage and health-insurance increases and reached a tentative agreement on those items. To date, the parties have not reached agreement regarding the application of the new vacation-pay rate formula to the unit.
"The Union contends that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act because it applied the new policy to its unrepresented employees but not is represented employees. It is not unlawful for an employer to treat unionized and nonunionized employees differently when providing new benefits, so long as the disparate treatment is not unlawfully motivated. Arc Bridges, 362 NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 3 (2015)... Here, there is no evidence that the Employer withheld the new vacation-pay rate formula from unit employees because of union animus. The Employer consistently and accurately informed unit employees and the Union that the new vacation pay formula was subject to bargaining. That the Employer initially tested certification does not by itself establish union animus. The Employer has a statutory right to challenge the Board’s certification and an employer may be motivated to do so for reasons having nothing to do with antiunion animus. There is no evidence that the Employer withheld the more favorable vacation-rate formula for antiunion reasons. The evidence establishes instead that the Employer notified the Union of its intention to provide this benefit, the wage increase, and health-insurance increase to unrepresented employees, and offered to bargain with the Union over these same benefits in negotiations with the Union for an overall collective-bargaining agreement."
"The Union also contends that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to apply the vacation-pay rate formula “proposed by FedEx Freight and agreed to by Teamsters Local 71.” The Union contends that the Employer’s August 17 notice of its plan to apply the new formula to unrepresented employees and its offer to bargain over the proposal with the Union was an offer that the Union accepted at the next bargaining session."
So the union copy and pasted an email sent by the company and tried to contest that it was a tentative agreement??
"The Union’s contention is wholly unsupported by the facts. By its plain language, the Employer’s August 17 message was notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain over the benefit it had lawfully chosen to apply to its unrepresented employees. To the extent the Union misunderstood its notice, the Employer made it clear that it had not made an offer, and there was no tentative agreement, immediately upon the Union’s cynical contention that there was.
"Accordingly, I find that the charge lacks merit and I am refusing to issue complaint in this matter."
The raise and healthcare we're done last year and have already taken effect, the vacation enhancement for city drivers at the four union centers still has to be negotiated while the city drivers at the other 370 or so centers are already enjoying the benefit...kinda ignorant for someone to respond about something they know nothing about wouldn't you think, hero??
You state in your post that a new agreement was negotiated in regards to pay increases as well as healthcareThe dismissal letter from the NLRB concerning the frivolous ULP filed by local 71 has finally been made public. Here are a few of the highlights of the decision...
https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45823d5196
"The charge alleges that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (3) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to apply a new vacation-pay rate formula toat the Employer’s Charlotte, North Carolina terminal. The investigation disclosed that the parties commenced bargaining for their initial collective-bargaining agreement on June 16, 2016. At the parties’ second bargaining session on July 28, the Employer notified the Union about its intention to provide to its unrepresented employees a scheduled wage increase, health insurance increase, and a new vacation-pay rate formula that was more favorable to employees."
"The Employer emailed the proposed wage increases to the Union on August 17. The Employer also informed the Union that it had told unit employees at the Charlotte terminal that their increases were subject to the bargaining process. The email then detailed the new vacation-pay rate formula scheduled to take effect for unrepresented employees in January 2017. The Employer concluded by telling the Union that it “look[ed] forward to discussing this issue with [the Union] as well.” The Union did not reply to this email."
"The parties met for their third bargaining session on August 20. During this session, the Union presented the Employer with an initialed document that it called a tentative agreement. The Union created the document by cutting and pasting from the Employer’s August 17 email information regarding the wage increase and new vacation-pay rate formula. The Employer immediately informed the Union that the new vacation-pay rate formula was not part of its proposal and was subject to bargaining. The parties engaged in further negotiations regarding the wage and health-insurance increases and reached a tentative agreement on those items. To date, the parties have not reached agreement regarding the application of the new vacation-pay rate formula to the unit.
"The Union contends that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act because it applied the new policy to its unrepresented employees but not is represented employees. It is not unlawful for an employer to treat unionized and nonunionized employees differently when providing new benefits, so long as the disparate treatment is not unlawfully motivated. Arc Bridges, 362 NLRB No. 56, slip op. at 3 (2015)... Here, there is no evidence that the Employer withheld the new vacation-pay rate formula from unit employees because of union animus. The Employer consistently and accurately informed unit employees and the Union that the new vacation pay formula was subject to bargaining. That the Employer initially tested certification does not by itself establish union animus. The Employer has a statutory right to challenge the Board’s certification and an employer may be motivated to do so for reasons having nothing to do with antiunion animus. There is no evidence that the Employer withheld the more favorable vacation-rate formula for antiunion reasons. The evidence establishes instead that the Employer notified the Union of its intention to provide this benefit, the wage increase, and health-insurance increase to unrepresented employees, and offered to bargain with the Union over these same benefits in negotiations with the Union for an overall collective-bargaining agreement."
"The Union also contends that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to apply the vacation-pay rate formula “proposed by FedEx Freight and agreed to by Teamsters Local 71.” The Union contends that the Employer’s August 17 notice of its plan to apply the new formula to unrepresented employees and its offer to bargain over the proposal with the Union was an offer that the Union accepted at the next bargaining session."
So the union copy and pasted an email sent by the company and tried to contest that it was a tentative agreement??
"The Union’s contention is wholly unsupported by the facts. By its plain language, the Employer’s August 17 message was notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain over the benefit it had lawfully chosen to apply to its unrepresented employees. To the extent the Union misunderstood its notice, the Employer made it clear that it had not made an offer, and there was no tentative agreement, immediately upon the Union’s cynical contention that there was.
"Accordingly, I find that the charge lacks merit and I am refusing to issue complaint in this matter."
