• I changed my mind on the clean sweep ... Forget about the other forum it will only be a test forum for me to use. Sue Me

Decision from the nlrb

truckchick1

Well-Known Member
1. The Respondent, Oak Harbor Freight Lines, Inc., is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Teamsters Locals 81, 174, 231, 252, 324, 483, 589, 690,
760, 763, 839, and 962 are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act subsequent to February 17, 2009, by unilaterally implementing
its company health care benefits to returning strikers
who are bargaining unit members of the Union and thereafter
failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with regard to such
benefits.
4. Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by refusing to reinstate Jeff Gibson to his former or substantially
equivalent position of employment.
5. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not otherwise violated the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
The Respondent will be ordered to offer reinstatement to Jeff
Gibson who it unlawfully denied reinstatement following the
close of the strike, and make him whole for any wages or other
rights and benefits he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in accordance with the formula set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
as provided for in New Horizons for the ********, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), and Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB No. 8 (2010).
Having unilaterally implemented its company health care
plan Respondent shall be ordered to bargain in good faith with
the Unions over such benefits and cease giving

Sorry this is only some cause they wouldn't let me copy multiple pdf pages. Basically they have to give us back our union medical but do not have to repay 3 years of pension rippoff. So I guess the vp boys win. Youall can keep working till your 70 cause you got no pension.
 

Who Cares

Active Member
I haven't read it all yet but word is we won the Teamster health plan back, and they have to pay us the out-of-pocket expenses between the Company plan and the Teamster plan. Lost the pension issue.

Case 19-CA-031797 | NLRB scroll down to the 05/16/2012 Board Decision
 

truckchick1

Well-Known Member
I haven't read it all yet but word is we won the Teamster health plan back, and they have to pay us the out-of-pocket expenses between the Company plan and the Teamster plan. Lost the pension issue.

Case 19-CA-031797 | NLRB scroll down to the 05/16/2012 Board Decision

So why do we not have our medical back, has anyone received what we have had to pay out of pocket back.
 

Who Cares

Active Member
Because both the Teamsters and OHFL appealed the decision. It is in the Ninth Circuit Court. The final briefs were due to the court in mid September. I wouldn't expect to see a decision till early in 2013.
 

Who Cares

Active Member
Well I am now totally confused now, and my last post may be completely wrong.

The appeal was originally filed in the DC District Court then moved to the Ninth District. But looking at the Ninth District and the DC District Courts it seems to have been sent back to the DC court. It is somewhat difficult to follow all the legal mumbo-jumbo.

If I am seeing the DC Court documents correctly the DC Court has it again with final briefs due to the court March 13, 2013. I'll bet sometime in the late fall of 2013 before anyone knows for sure.

But the clock keeps ticking, and if the Union prevails the Fool's Brothers will just owe that much more. At last count the Union said they figure in the range of $7 million plus.
 
Top