What's new

XPO | Xpo Union Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Serene Gene said:
I read it. The union is arguing that since we got raises almost every year since the recession that counts as a "scheduled raise" and should not have stopped in status quo. I don't know how you could argue that, since if you go back on these boards there was a lot of "if we get a raise", not "when we get our annual raise".

The ruling also acknowledged that it was not retaliatory- that the company had a reasonable belief that they were not obligated to give those raises. The opinion of the judge flat out stated that it simply made it hard for the union to keep XPO employees motivated after so long, to which I would say that's your problem. It also said that XPO offered to negotiate pay, but the union refused.

Not nearly as straightforward as Sucker666 makes it sound. That judge is trying to give the union a late Christmas present. Not that it changes the strength of Miami's bargaining position at all.
Click to expand...
Again break the law and you pay. Xpo is a labor law violator.
 
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Each of the affected employees shall be reimbursed for the increases they would have received in April 2016 to the present time by payment of the difference between their actual wages and benefits and the wages and benefits they would have received had they been compensated in the same manner as Respondent’s unrepresented employees. Back pay shall be computed in accordance with Ogle Protection Service, Inc., 183 NLRB 682 (1970), plus interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Respondent shall also file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters and compensate employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year, Advoserv of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
 
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended11
ORDER
The Respondent, XPO Logistics Freight, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters or any other labor organization by withholding wage increases that have been granted to similarly situated unrepresented employees and are part of an established past practice, from employees represented by the Teamsters or any other labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
the same facts, and the fact that a remedy for 8(a)(5) violations would be cumulative, I need not address the issue of whether the 8(a)(5) allegation is time-barred.
Conclusion of Law
5
increase from the represented employees at its Miami/Hialeah service center.
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) in withholding a corporate-wide wage
REMEDY
JD–04–18
10
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole employees in its Miami/Hialeah service center, who are represented by the Charging Party Union, for any monetary loss suffered as a result of
5 Respondent’s failure to grant to these employees, wages granted to similarly situated unrepresented employees, retroactive to April 2016, plus interest in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the 10 Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place
15
designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Miami/Hialeah service center copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”12 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
20 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
25 that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since April 3, 2016.
30
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
35 Dated, Washington, D.C. January 19, 2018
Serene Gene said:
I read it. The union is arguing that since we got raises almost every year since the recession that counts as a "scheduled raise" and should not have stopped in status quo. I don't know how you could argue that, since if you go back on these boards there was a lot of "if we get a raise", not "when we get our annual raise".

The ruling also acknowledged that it was not retaliatory- that the company had a reasonable belief that they were not obligated to give those raises. The opinion of the judge flat out stated that it simply made it hard for the union to keep XPO employees motivated after so long, to which I would say that's your problem. It also said that XPO offered to negotiate pay, but the union refused.

Not nearly as straightforward as Sucker666 makes it sound. That judge is trying to give the union a late Christmas present. Not that it changes the strength of Miami's bargaining position at all.
Click to expand...
its every bit as straightforward as I stated . Gene your attempt to discredit me is null . The decision is as stated and stands on its own
 
The case number is 12-ca -179859 . Gene kindly posted a link to the Nlrb so anyone can check it out. Another member said he couldn’t use the site due to the government shutdown. I will try it to see if it’s working.
 
sucker666 said:
The case number is 12-ca -179859 . Gene kindly posted a link to the Nlrb so anyone can check it out. Another member said he couldn’t use the site due to the government shutdown. I will try it to see if it’s working.
Click to expand...
I did try the Nlrb site and it is not up due to the shutdown. I will try to post the full decision.
 
the company was found in the wrong and made to pay up. Great. They were wrong, and will pay for it. I find it interesting that you have not posted word one on the Albany decision after they voted. Can you admit at least that that barn chose to stay non union and respect their decision?
 
upnorth said:
the company was found in the wrong and made to pay up. Great. They were wrong, and will pay for it. I find it interesting that you have not posted word one on the Albany decision after they voted. Can you admit at least that that barn chose to stay non union and respect their decision?
Click to expand...
I saw the vote outcome for Albany on Saturday. The decision is theirs and I respect it.
 
sucker666 said:
Again break the law and you pay. Xpo is a labor law violator.
Click to expand...
What ****ed up is they want the raised that is not a norm or scheduled like the 3 step raise for new employees.
But yet the company can not change there insurance programs which have changed every year since the 2009.
 
This was not a mistake on the companies part . Let it be known that this was a well thought out strategy that the company was using to disfranchise it’s workers that voted for a union or ( like Albany) were considering organizing.
 
upnorth said:
the company was found in the wrong and made to pay up. Great. They were wrong, and will pay for it. I find it interesting that you have not posted word one on the Albany decision after they voted. Can you admit at least that that barn chose to stay non union and respect their decision?
Click to expand...
That does not fit there cause. And the vote wasn't even close. I sure the union will fill so kind of bs appeal.
 
Fly-by-night said:
What ****ed up is they want the raised that is not a norm or scheduled like the 3 step raise for new employees.
But yet the company can not change there insurance programs which have changed every year since the 2009.
Click to expand...
Graduated pay raises were never effected and continued .
 
sucker666 said:
Graduated pay raises were never effected and continued .
Click to expand...
But yet pay raise were never a set schedule. The only raise the company has to honor was the step raise for new employees. You want to blame Xpo when they were only following the rules. I guess the union forgot to tell the employees of that. I believe there will be an appeal filed
 
Fly-by-night said:
What ****ed up is they want the raised that is not a norm or scheduled like the 3 step raise for new employees.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And that's the argument- that those unscheduled raises were annual raises that they were entitled to. I'd be surprised if that held up on appeal.
Fly-by-night said:
But yet the company can not change there insurance programs which have changed every year since the 2009
Click to expand...

Good point- since our insurance has gone up every year, that's a scheduled change too. Guess they owe the company some back premiums, huh?
 
Fly-by-night said:
But yet pay raise were never a set schedule. The only raise the company has to honor was the step raise for new employees. You want to blame Xpo when they were only following the rules. I guess the union forgot to tell the employees of that. I believe there will be an appeal filed
Click to expand...
Not so Sir. The company set president over the course of years.
 
Fly-by-night said:
And so they have with the insurance so that means that the employees owe the company some back premium payments
Click to expand...
Not so Miami’s insurance cost are locked since 2015.
The company was found to be withholding pay raises from union employees only prior to having a contract to dissuade union employees and as an example to non union employees.
 
sucker666 said:
Not so Miami’s insurance cost are locked since 2015.
The company was found to be withholding pay raises from union employees only prior to having a contract to dissuade union employees and as an example to non union employees.
Click to expand...
You are talking in circles. The rule Xpo followed state that the company does not have to give an unscheduled raises to employees durning contract negotiations. Just like there insurance was froze so was there pay. Once the vote was certified they were now under contract talks
 
Fly-by-night said:
You are talking in circles. The rule Xpo followed state that the company does not have to give an unscheduled raises to employees durning contract negotiations. Just like there insurance was froze so was there pay. Once the vote was certified they were now under contract talks
Click to expand...
Where is that rule?
I think the ruling is pretty well spelled out and clear. If you get a chance read it in full .
Xpo chose not to give pay raises to union terminals And gave increases to non union locations. They gave all locations pay increases in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top