Yellow | Teamsters call for dismissal of ABF lawsuit about YRC concessions

R-14Driver

TB Legend
Credits
0
Date: Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 1:12pm CST

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is joining YRC Worldwide Inc. in calling for a federal judge in Arkansas to dismiss a lawsuit challenging three rounds of wage and benefit concessions approved by union members who work for YRC.

In a court filing Tuesday, the Teamsters echoed many of the arguments that YRC (Nasdaq: YRCW) raised in its filings against ABF Freight System Inc.’s lawsuit earlier this month......................

Teamsters call for dismissal of ABF lawsuit about YRC concessions | Kansas City Business Journal
 
From above article " YRC and the Teamsters have argued that ABF took itself out of negotiating the NMFA in 2008, so it has no right to assert the contract now. They also noted that ABF attempted to gain some of the same concessions in May, without participation by YRC, but that its union workers voted down those changes.

In addition, the Teamsters argue that ABF needs to present its concerns at a grievance hearing before the court gets involved."
 
“The only proper procedure here is for ABF to raise the issue before the grievance committee to which it objects, and proceed with its grievance on the merits,” the Teamsters filing reads. “That is, after all, what the contract requires.”

ABF has filed a grievance but also filed the lawsuit, claiming the grievance procedure was flawed because representatives of the Teamsters and YRC would sit on the panel.


It's a union matter..they is in a pickle with the high cost structure
 
That kind of what I am thinking also GO40. Because ABF is still paying for joe to enjoy the good life yrc isn't paying a cent and they haven't in the past what almost 2 years now. But I say he is retired management from big R.
 
In a separate decision, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright denied YRC’s request to expedite the case, saying the proposed timelines were not feasible. YRC had hoped to get the case dismissed quickly, saying it could be an obstacle as YRC negotiates with lenders as part of its financial restructuring. That restructuring must be completed by the end of the year, or YRC risks losing worker concessions.


Read more: Teamsters call for dismissal of ABF lawsuit about YRC concessions | Kansas City Business Journal :argue:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From above article " YRC and the Teamsters have argued that ABF took itself out of negotiating the NMFA in 2008, so it has no right to assert the contract now. They also noted that ABF attempted to gain some of the same concessions in May, without participation by YRC, but that its union workers voted down those changes.

In addition, the Teamsters argue that ABF needs to present its concerns at a grievance hearing before the court gets involved."

I see no credibility in the argument that ABF has "no right to assert the contract now" when they have been abiding by it for the last three years. In fact it was the IBT that forced the contract on them. How can they claim otherwise now?

I cannot see how ABF's attempt to attain the same concessions could have any bearing on this case. If ABF illegally attempted to attain workers' concessions that would be a separate case.
 
I see no credibility in the argument that ABF has "no right to assert the contract now" when they have been abiding by it for the last three years. In fact it was the IBT that forced the contract on them. How can they claim otherwise now?

I cannot see how ABF's attempt to attain the same concessions could have any bearing on this case. If ABF illegally attempted to attain workers' concessions that would be a separate case.

I suppose that is why all parties involved will spend a large amount of money arguing the relative merits of their cases. However the NMFA does contain language to provide for relief due to extraordinary conditions. How those conditions came about is not a determining factor in whether or not relief will be granted. Only a vote by the AFFECTED members determines that. Just a reminder NO ONE forced the contract on anyone. The members employed at Yellow, Roadway, AND ABF VOTED or don't you recall. If ANYONE forced the NMFA on ABF it was the Teamster employees of ABF. And it was and still is the Teamster employees of ABF that will decide whether or not economic relief will be given to ABF.
 
Commom Sense

I see no credibility in the argument that ABF has "no right to assert the contract now" when they have been abiding by it for the last three years. In fact it was the IBT that forced the contract on them. How can they claim otherwise now?

I cannot see how ABF's attempt to attain the same concessions could have any bearing on this case. If ABF illegally attempted to attain workers' concessions that would be a separate case.

So you are saying ABF says everyone is under the NMFA and so we are all one?
Then you say if ABF violated the NMFA that should be a separate case!

I assure you it has a lot to do with this Case you can't do the same thing and if you don't get the desired result run crying to the Courts. It will be Dismissed on this one issue since ABF agreed to alter the NMFA by having thier concession Vote
I won't even bother to go into the Me-To issues with the Contract and those Letters ABF's CEO wrote.:Emoticon_digging:
 
I think the extension of the contract until 2015 will be the pivotal point. The Judge is a Bush boy Republican. Conspiracy theory says they were behind all this to bust the Union in Trucking.

Susan Webber Wright
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Susan Webber Wright (born 1948) is a United States federal judge, presently serving as the chief judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. She received national attention when she dismissed the sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones against President Bill Clinton in 1998.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life, education, and career
2 Federal judicial service
3 Personal life
4 Notes
5 Sources
6 External links
[edit]Early life, education, and career

Born in Texarkana, Arkansas, Wright received a B.A. from Randolph-Macon Woman's College in 1970 and an M.P.A. from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1973.[1] received her J.D. from that institution in 1975.[1] While there, she was a student of future president Bill Clinton in his course on admiralty law;[2]; she later challenged him on her grade. The dispute occurred after Clinton lost all the exams and offered students a B+;[3] Wright had desired an A and after negotiating with Clinton's fiance, Hillary Rodham, Clinton agreed to give Wright an A.[3] A conservative Republican,[2] Wright worked for the reelection campaign of Republican Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt in 1974,[3] who defeated Clinton by 6,000 votes in what was the future president's first run for political office.
Upon graduation, Wright served as a law clerk to J. Smith Henley of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from 1975 to 1976.[1] She was a member of the faculty of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock School of Law from 1976 to 1990,[3] as an assistant professor and assistant dean from 1976 to 1978, associate professor from 1980 to 1983, and full professor from 1983 to 1990. She was a research assistant to the Arkansas Constitutional Convention in 1979, and a visiting professor, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville School of Law in 1980, to the Ohio State University College of Law in 1981, and to the Louisiana State University Law Center from 1982 to 1983.
[edit]Federal judicial service

Recommended by Hammerschimdt,[3] Wright was appointed to both the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Western District of Arkansas by President George H.W. Bush on September 21, 1989, both seats having been vacated by Elsijane Trimble Roy. Wright was confirmed by the United States Senate on January 23, 1990, and received her commission the following day. On December 1, 1990, she was reassigned to serve only on the Eastern District of Arkansas. Wright served as chief judge of that District from 1998 to 2005.
Wright also presided over Paula Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. The claims were based on activity alleged to have taken place when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and Jones worked in his office. Wright refused to grant Clinton absolute presidential immunity against the lawsuit, but nonetheless ruled that a sitting president could not be sued and deferred his trial until after his presidential term was over;[4] The ruling to keep Jones from suing Clinton, while he was still president, was overturned by the Eighth Circuit.[2] Clinton then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider Wright's ruling.[2] However, the Supreme Court declined this request and allowed Jones's lawsuit to continue without delay.[5]
On April 1, 1998, Wright granted summary judgment to Clinton in a 39-page ruling that expressed exasperation with both Jones and her lawyers, and stated that she believed the case to be without legal merit.[6] Jones's appeal to the Eighth Circuit was dismissed when Clinton settled with her out of court.
Wright was also involved with Kenneth Starr's investigation of the Whitewater scandal, and issued numerous rulings that were both favorable and unfavorable to Clinton.[2] Notably, Wright imprisoned Susan McDougal for the maximum 18 months for civil contempt of court when McDougal refused to answer "three questions" about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony.[7]
[edit]Personal life

In 1983,[8] Wright married Robert R. Wright III, law professor and co-founder of The University of Arkansas at Little Rock's law school.[9] Together Robert and Susan had a daughter, Robin.[8] On June 4, 2006, Robert R. Wright III, aged 74, died.[9]
[edit]Notes
 
So you are saying ABF says everyone is under the NMFA and so we are all one?
Then you say if ABF violated the NMFA that should be a separate case!

I assure you it has a lot to do with this Case you can't do the same thing and if you don't get the desired result run crying to the Courts. It will be Dismissed on this one issue since ABF agreed to alter the NMFA by having thier concession Vote
I won't even bother to go into the Me-To issues with the Contract and those Letters ABF's CEO wrote.:Emoticon_digging:
This is why some people hold steering wheels & others are lawyers let the qualified people figure this out.
 
I suppose that is why all parties involved will spend a large amount of money arguing the relative merits of their cases. However the NMFA does contain language to provide for relief due to extraordinary conditions. How those conditions came about is not a determining factor in whether or not relief will be granted. Only a vote by the AFFECTED members determines that. Just a reminder NO ONE forced the contract on anyone. The members employed at Yellow, Roadway, AND ABF VOTED or don't you recall. If ANYONE forced the NMFA on ABF it was the Teamster employees of ABF. And it was and still is the Teamster employees of ABF that will decide whether or not economic relief will be given to ABF.

Locals 179,705, 710 voted on a white paper contracts in 2008.The NMFA was forced on us just about a year ago!!!
 
Locals 179,705, 710 voted on a white paper contracts in 2008.The NMFA was forced on us just about a year ago!!!

The white paper agreements that involved Local 710 cover dock, office, and janitorial. 710 road has been NMFA for as long as I've been here and many years before that.
 
images
If ABF were granted concessions they would only use it for discount ammo. Like take another 15% more discount YRC customers..come on over
 
sound to me like they want to keep it out of the courts because the union would loose control. if I were a member working at ABf I would not want the decision in the hands of the union because if they loose ABF, the Co, will start to loose money becasue of the disadvantage and the members in turn will be forced to take concessions in order for the co to cut cost and be able to compete. and will proubly end up cutting jobs to save money , just like yellow. So is the union representing the members of ABF ? Isn't that after all what the contract requires? On one had they are saying that ABF withdrew and is not entitled to complain and on the other hand they want them to abide by the aggrement that they with drew from and have a panel who has an apparent conflict of intrest doing the deciding instead of the courts. kinds irontic isint it? kinda like the conflict of intrest of having union members on the yrcw board and having stock intrest in it and having the same union represent the members best intrest. not cool.
 
I believe it it a conspericy to bust the unions. well In the public sector anyway. the real money for the democrats is in the goverment jobs which is where the unions have been focusing their organization efforts . goverment pention funds is great for the unions they are paid for by the goverment. translated.... tax payer....translated ... ourselves. great rotation.
 
Top