IBT and YRC change recall language?????

[705Red]

YRCW Claims Relief from Calling Back Laid Off Teamsters | Teamsters for a Democratic Union

Hoepefully someone from Ohio can deny or acknowledge this.

March 15, 2010: A memo from the YRCW VP for Labor Relations claims that the corporation has obtained a new union concession regarding the contract clause requiring the recall of laid-off Teamsters when excess overtime is worked.

Bob Jones, in a memo distributed to stewards at some Ohio terminals, directs YRC and Holland management to essentially rewrite Article 5, Section 6 of the NMFA. The contract requires that when total overtime worked for a week exceeds 10 hours in a week per active Teamster by a total of 50 hours, then a Teamster must be recalled, and one more Teamster for each additional 50 hours. The contract is clear and gives an example.

The NMFA thus requires that if active Teamsters are worked an aggregate average of over 50 hours, the company must start recalling laid off Teamsters to spread employment to our laid off brothers and sisters.

The YRCW corporate memo claims that a "recent agreement between the IBT and the company" will "give the company greater latitude in O/T utilization without triggering recalls of laid-off Teamsters."

The company claims they can now stretch it out to 90 hours over the aggregate limit, instead of 50, before triggering recalls. The effect is to allow more excess overtime before anyone is called back to work.

The change would hurt smaller terminals the most. For example, if there are 18 Teamsters active on the city-dock board, under this policy YRCW is claiming, they could work everyone up to 55 hours and still not trigger any recall.

Did the IBT really agree to this, as YRCW's labor man claims? We hope not. If so, why? And, since it is a change in the plain language of Article 5 of the NMFA, when will the affected Teamsters be allowed to vote on it by secret ballot, as required by the IBT Constitution for mid-term contract changes.

Teamster and local officers in a number of areas report they know nothing of this claim by YRCW of changing the contract. It's time for the International Union to clarify the situation, and to enforce the contract.

[Pullin3]

We all know who the VP is.
They need to get Jack and Jimmy on a conference call and say, "who's telling the truth?"

[MULER]

I know I had an issue with the OT hours language. And I was told that article was under review by the national grievance committee. So I would not be surprised if they gave such a ruling. We handled our problem in company the way it was written in the contract. Don't be surprised.

[705Red]

If the union opens up the contract to change language the members still have the right to vote on the changes. If the hours have gone from 50 to 90 that is a change in language and not an interpretation on existing language as you speak of waiting for the national grievance committee.

[MULER]

I understand what you think they said in the contract. The companies where questioning the hours and how they would be computed.If you add the fifty hours plus what the companies figure would trigger a recall it would be well over fifty. They questioned the amount of hours one worked from the laid off list to a casual. Was it to be ten hours allowed for a day or would that person be counted as a fifty hour person before they went over. You see it was a total mess and now it has to be corrected. I know what the real formula should be and so does everybody else but in comes the gray area. I had stated in an earlier post that this was just a carrot to get some of the junior Teamsters to vote for the contract. I hope people are beginning to see just how we were let down in the contract when all is said and done. Have you ever heard of the IBT and the companies reopening the contracts in the years past to give the members a raise or to better their benifits? YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!

[Teamster]

I can say I think this stinks, I think there is more on layoff than is working right now.

[705Red]

Originally Posted by MULER

I understand what you think they said in the contract. The companies where questioning the hours and how they would be computed.If you add the fifty hours plus what the companies figure would trigger a recall it would be well over fifty. They questioned the amount of hours one worked from the laid off list to a casual. Was it to be ten hours allowed for a day or would that person be counted as a fifty hour person before they went over. You see it was a total mess and now it has to be corrected. I know what the real formula should be and so does everybody else but in comes the gray area. I had stated in an earlier post that this was just a carrot to get some of the junior Teamsters to vote for the contract. I hope people are beginning to see just how we were let down in the contract when all is said and done. Have you ever heard of the IBT and the companies reopening the contracts in the years past to give the members a raise or to better their benifits? YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!

Something this serious should not have a grey area, we are not talking about a refrigerator in a cafeteria. Language like this should be drafted with teeth, and at the least have a firm understanding of what it means when you walk out of negotiations.

[BilyWamBam]

Well i could seriously say i hope they do change it cus ive been called back twice, first time i came back following week and worked 2 days got laid off that first week, second time i got called back i took my 2 weeks to go back and got laid off before i went back!!if some one who is laid off with 3 or 4 people in front of them, and they had a job they would have to make a decision to resign or go back and risk working 2 days and get laid off and lose a steady income. So CHANGE it it aint working like they hoped!

[MULER]

Your right Red. There should be no gray areas. There should be no doubt about any article in the contract. I think they allow this so as to create jobs for people. And so they can decide who gets fired and who doesn't. Why has the Tyson Team not acted on this matter? Let's all remember these people in the next election.

[Pullin3]

Originally Posted by MULER

I understand what you think they said in the contract. The companies where questioning the hours and how they would be computed.If you add the fifty hours plus what the companies figure would trigger a recall it would be well over fifty. They questioned the amount of hours one worked from the laid off list to a casual. Was it to be ten hours allowed for a day or would that person be counted as a fifty hour person before they went over. You see it was a total mess and now it has to be corrected.

This sounds like a purposeful convolution of the words to gum up the process. It's no different than Bill Clinton asking the definition of the word is.

Originally Posted by MULER

Why has the Tyson Team not acted on this matter? Let's all remember these people in the next election.

I've said it before, and I'll plaster it all over the website as needed.
The IBT has promised YRC to do what they can to keep the company in business. Anything that can be construed as detrimental to the well being of the company, is not going to be an acceptable action by the IBT.