What's new

ABF | BA not doing job ?

P

peter guzinnia

TB Lurker
Credits
22
If i don't think that the BA is doing there job , do i have another avenue to pursue ? What i think is a win for a grievance BA tells me that they are not going to pursue because they think they will lose. Is it not up to a panel to review the grievance ?
 
peter guzinnia said:
If i don't think that the BA is doing there job , do i have another avenue to pursue ? What i think is a win for a grievance BA tells me that they are not going to pursue because they think they will lose. Is it not up to a panel to review the grievance ?
Click to expand...

You can always mention "duty of fair representation" lawsuit to your Local's attorney.
 
When I was a union steward there were employees who would get mad because I said they didn't have a grievance. I'll tell you what I told them, sue the B.A., sue the union. That is what civil courts are for. This is your suit.......

Detrimental reliance is a legal concept under the law of contracts. Ordinarily, a valid contract requires a proper exchange of consideration between the parties. A mere promise to do something in the future is usually not enforceable unless the beneficiary of the promise also promises to do.

Put your money where your mouth is. You don't have to take this from your B.A. You know more than he/she does.
 
The current trend is that our BAs are too cozy. rocking the boat creates work..most are out of touch, should be retired, and hang around to tell stories about the good ole days. i would have more issues with steward. no is too common.
 
toilet paper said:
NLRB charges can be filed against the BA as a last resort but if you feel that strongly then do it.
Click to expand...
Ya better do your homework before you go that route. First, the Local will become your worst nightmare. Why. You went around the chain of command, making them look bad. 2. You need to have a well versed Labor Attorney to help you. This will cost you money up front with a chance you will still lose the case. 3. And most important. Is the cost to you, personal, & monetary, worth the possible outcome you are seeking? As you think of all this, is it worth it if I lose my case. Because you might. von.
 
I forgot. Attorneys rarely work for free. If seeing 2 or 3 lawyers to take you case, & they turn you down, 'Here's your sign moment'. von.
 
Pretty much every Local out there has a Law firm on retainer. That does not mean they are automatically on the Union's side,...or your side.
They are on the Ethical Law side,.......That being said, if you approach them for pro bono legal advice concerning a contractual issue, and they advise you that you have a fairly good case.....NOT a slam-dunk,....then you should proceed to the Local Union Principal officer to override the B.A.

If he agrees with you,......he can push the grievance,...on behalf of your case. He can get the grievance scheduled.

However,....you haven't said whether you've had a first meeting with management in an attempt to resolve the issue. You MUST have a steward, committee person,...and preferably ...the B.A. in question with you......
DO NOT attempt to meet with management on your own.......That can be a deep,deep snakepit...........

It is the .....personal opinion.....of that B.A., as to whether your grievance has merit. What does your barn steward/committee people say? In many cases, they know the contract better than the B.A.....who may have been elected out of a completely different industry with a Teamster contract,....and may not fully understand your contract.

If you have a consensus of the leadership in your barn..(..steward/assistant/committee..)..that your grievance is valid.....and it's outcome will affect future conditions of the barn.......then proceed with full confidence right through your Local President,...and beyond to the NLRB if need so.......

Pick up a copy of your Local Bylaws....and the IBT Constitution......Both of them have mechanisms to file charges and remove officers who've gotten too ...."chummy"....with management.
The preponderance of proof is on YOU............so don't file charges just because you don't like the guy..........

And,.....if everyone I've mentioned has told you that your grievance has no merit,...........then I suggest a slow, careful reading of the entire section of the contract you believe is being violated.........As a steward myself,...I've had to remind guys there is no "Hurt Feelings and Insults" section of the contract,....and you can't use grievance machinery for personal vendettas......

Good Luck, Brother..........Merit or not,.....you're still a Union Brother in need of advice.....
 
You have a right to file any greivance. They have to represent you. If not file chgs. Better yet, Organize a new Steward election and let your steward know that people are unhappy with his services. He is elected, not appointed. I have a great one I woulod like to file, Both Steward and BA say i dont have a case.. I do according to contract and past practice. They dont want to ruffle managements feathers and create more work. Would rather get guys who have multiple wrecks their jobs back. Bottom line they just go to final extreme measures, Anything less, its rubbing elbows Troubling we have Union BAs and officials that hunt/fish, etc with Labor Man and other personnell issues.. MISREPRESENTATION all the way..
 
Many times BA’s do not want to submit what they think is a losing grievance to committee. A loss would set a precedent in the future. Committees do not like their agendas clogged with what they consider frivolous grievances. Sometimes more can be achieved behind the scenes bargaining over whatever infraction has occurred.
 
canaryinthemine said:
Pretty much every Local out there has a Law firm on retainer. That does not mean they are automatically on the Union's side,...or your side.
They are on the Ethical Law side,.......That being said, if you approach them for pro bono legal advice concerning a contractual issue, and they advise you that you have a fairly good case.....NOT a slam-dunk,....then you should proceed to the Local Union Principal officer to override the B.A.

If he agrees with you,......he can push the grievance,...on behalf of your case. He can get the grievance scheduled.

However,....you haven't said whether you've had a first meeting with management in an attempt to resolve the issue. You MUST have a steward, committee person,...and preferably ...the B.A. in question with you......
DO NOT attempt to meet with management on your own.......That can be a deep,deep snakepit...........

It is the .....personal opinion.....of that B.A., as to whether your grievance has merit. What does your barn steward/committee people say? In many cases, they know the contract better than the B.A.....who may have been elected out of a completely different industry with a Teamster contract,....and may not fully understand your contract.

If you have a consensus of the leadership in your barn..(..steward/assistant/committee..)..that your grievance is valid.....and it's outcome will affect future conditions of the barn.......then proceed with full confidence right through your Local President,...and beyond to the NLRB if need so.......

Pick up a copy of your Local Bylaws....and the IBT Constitution......Both of them have mechanisms to file charges and remove officers who've gotten too ...."chummy"....with management.
The preponderance of proof is on YOU............so don't file charges just because you don't like the guy..........

And,.....if everyone I've mentioned has told you that your grievance has no merit,...........then I suggest a slow, careful reading of the entire section of the contract you believe is being violated.........As a steward myself,...I've had to remind guys there is no "Hurt Feelings and Insults" section of the contract,....and you can't use grievance machinery for personal vendettas......

Good Luck, Brother..........Merit or not,.....you're still a Union Brother in need of advice.....
Click to expand...
Well said. von.
 
iam4us said:
The current trend is that our BAs are too cozy. rocking the boat creates work..most are out of touch, should be retired, and hang around to tell stories about the good ole days. i would have more issues with steward. no is too common.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. I had issues with our ‘shop steward’ too. Never seemed to wanna advance ANY grievances. The ONE time I went over his head directly to the BA was basically ‘career *******’ for me. Our BA came down to the terminal (unbeknownst to me) and spoke to our ‘shop steward’ about the issue (seniority/past practice language) and from then on, I was branded. The stewards and BA’s should be representing US, but it wasn’t that way at our barn.
 
I would always advise anybody wanting to file a grievance if I thought it was a grievance or a gripe. I remember one person went around the agent & local & went to grievance hearings on his own. Nobody at the local knew he was going. The business agent did present it to the committee & they heard it even though it was not the schedule. The committee saw no violation & said what he was proposing could cause a loss of jobs or at best cause men to be placed in a lower classification & the company would be forced to pay those affected a lower rate. Spite is never a good reason to file a grievance.
 
DCM_Doc said:
I would always advise anybody wanting to file a grievance if I thought it was a grievance or a gripe. I remember one person went around the agent & local & went to grievance hearings on his own. Nobody at the local knew he was going. The business agent did present it to the committee & they heard it even though it was not the schedule. The committee saw no violation & said what he was proposing could cause a loss of jobs or at best cause men to be placed in a lower classification & the company would be forced to pay those affected a lower rate. Spite is never a good reason to file a grievance.
Click to expand...
Agree, doc. The reverse is true as well as far as the steward NOT taking action. In my particular ‘case’ it was a clear violation of seniority and past practice language. I called the ‘steward’ out on a few things early in my tenure at ABF, and ever since then, it became ‘personal’ for him so I pretty much gave up on getting any help from him. Spite is a two-way street.
 
Trucker 206 said:
Agree, doc. The reverse is true as well as far as the steward NOT taking action. In my particular ‘case’ it was a clear violation of seniority and past practice language. I called the ‘steward’ out on a few things early in my tenure at ABF, and ever since then, it became ‘personal’ for him so I pretty much gave up on getting any help from him. Spite is a two-way street.
Click to expand...
There is no excuse for anybody turning a blind eye to violations of seniority rights. Those who condone that help the company violate everybody's seniority rights. They may not think it affects them but it eventually will & then they are the ones crying & quoting the contract. I have known some with less seniority that benefited when non contractual rules were made for them.
Standing up for your rights may not make you popular but you can look in the mirror & not be ashamed at what you see.
 
peter guzinnia said:
If i don't think that the BA is doing there job , do i have another avenue to pursue ? What i think is a win for a grievance BA tells me that they are not going to pursue because they think they will lose. Is it not up to a panel to review the grievance ?
Click to expand...


Many cash-strapped Locals also make decisions to go to Panel based on.....financial considerations. Anyone who has filed a grievance knows that the sentence after the decision reads: "Cost to Company/Union."........depending on who lost....

This pays for the cost of the hearing,...room rental,...travel expenses ,..and other sundries...

Under normal circumstances,..any Union wouldn't have to worry about fighting for a case they think is even marginally right.....

But,....in this day and age of Janus decisions, Fair-Share payers, Beck Laws,...and Right-To-Work Laws,......many smaller Locals are now underfunded......(...and the "kicker" is that the Union, by Law,....MUST provide representation even to those who refuse to pay Dues!...)......
A case that might be about a...minor point...in the contract may be deemed not worthy of spending money to fight....Even though that "point" may be important to you.....

This is the real reason for all those so-called "Right not to join" laws......Corporations have banded together..(..A UNION!..)..to push a legislative agenda to....gradually de-fund Locals by bleeding the dues money out,....using company propaganda to convince the chronically uninformed that their..."rights"...are being violated....

I had a guy in my own barn who said he would become a "Fair-Share" payer,....because he could buy a CASE OF BEER! with the money he saved by not paying dues!.....How's that for selling your birthright for a mess of pottage?

It is terrible that many Locals have got to that point,...only taking on the bigger cases that are sure winners,....because they can't afford the price tag for "justice"......

Hopefully, that's not the case in your Local, Brother........
 
canaryinthemine said:
Many cash-strapped Locals also make decisions to go to Panel based on.....financial considerations. Anyone who has filed a grievance knows that the sentence after the decision reads: "Cost to Company/Union."........depending on who lost....

This pays for the cost of the hearing,...room rental,...travel expenses ,..and other sundries...

Under normal circumstances,..any Union wouldn't have to worry about fighting for a case they think is even marginally right.....

But,....in this day and age of Janus decisions, Fair-Share payers, Beck Laws,...and Right-To-Work Laws,......many smaller Locals are now underfunded......(...and the "kicker" is that the Union, by Law,....MUST provide representation even to those who refuse to pay Dues!...)......
A case that might be about a...minor point...in the contract may be deemed not worthy of spending money to fight....Even though that "point" may be important to you.....

This is the real reason for all those so-called "Right not to join" laws......Corporations have banded together..(..A UNION!..)..to push a legislative agenda to....gradually de-fund Locals by bleeding the dues money out,....using company propaganda to convince the chronically uninformed that their..."rights"...are being violated....

I had a guy in my own barn who said he would become a "Fair-Share" payer,....because he could buy a CASE OF BEER! with the money he saved by not paying dues!.....How's that for selling your birthright for a mess of pottage?

It is terrible that many Locals have got to that point,...only taking on the bigger cases that are sure winners,....because they can't afford the price tag for "justice"......

Hopefully, that's not the case in your Local, Brother........
Click to expand...
When right to work went in to effect in Indiana about 4 years ago Local 135 told me I had to pay all of my dues or none. They would not take ANY partial payment. Ever hear of this? von.
 
vongrimmenstein said:
When right to work went in to effect in Indiana about 4 years ago Local 135 told me I had to pay all of my dues or none. They would not take ANY partial payment. Ever hear of this? von.
Click to expand...

Well........that might be illegal,......determined by what that Local’s “Fair Share”........the amount of money determined every year by the LM-2 as to how much dues money is diverted to political and “other” uses......

It is possible......that your Local claims that every dollar collected from dues goes toward representation......only it’s not probable.
Several Unions claiming that have had their LM-2’s audited.......pushed by business advocacy groups,.....and were sued...by the business groups.....”on behalf of the rank-and-file”......for the slightest questionable item.

One $10 donation to a politician of any party,......one campaign sign on Union property. (Payment-in-kind).......and your Local is sued for violating the “rights” of the rank-and-file......

Never mind that businesses can plaster campaign posters all over the property,.......and thanks to Citizens United,.....can donate wads of cash without accountability......

Pretty much all Locals determine that at least 85% of dues is the “Fair Share” is what most dues payers have to pay for representation.

Now there are Beck laws that allow an employee to pay NO dues......but they have different requirements.
 
vongrimmenstein said:
When right to work went in to effect in Indiana about 4 years ago Local 135 told me I had to pay all of my dues or none. They would not take ANY partial payment. Ever hear of this? von.
Click to expand...
I have heard of it. Several years ago some employees at ABF Atlanta where trying to get employees to only pay local dues and not international dues (our dues is divided with the local getting a small percentage of the amount taken from each check). I don't think it went anywhere because local 728 (president, vice president, B.A. union stewards) and most employees where against it.
 
vongrimmenstein said:
When right to work went in to effect in Indiana about 4 years ago Local 135 told me I had to pay all of my dues or none. They would not take ANY partial payment. Ever hear of this? von.
Click to expand...
Central states area had a %age max they could take out of your check. If your local/supplement don’t have that, I don’t know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top