Adverse Conditions (Article 7.J)
A grievance has been filed on behalf of the entire local membership (ET-AL) regarding their inability to report to work during the recent snow storm. The Union is seeking pay protection, pursuant to Article 7.J.2, for all employees who were turned away by local authorities or unable to get to their work area due to the employee bus not running on Sunday, December 26, 2010. Further the Union is seeking pay protection, pursuant to Article 7.J.2 for all employees unable to report to work on Monday, December 27, 2010.
Contracting Out Work – Scope (Article 1)
A grievance has been filed on behalf of the GSE members due to the Company utilizing an outside vendor to perform tire build up work. This is work that has been performed by unit employees in the past and was recently defined as falling under the job description of the Utility Specialist Craft in the most recently ratified Collective Bargaining Agreement. The grievance has been denied at the first two levels of the appeal process and has been filed to the System Board of Adjustment.
Work Area Cross-Utilization (LOA #31)
An ET-AL grievance has been filed stating the Company has violated LOA #31 by transferring employees from one work area to another to cover known outages. LOA #31, paragraph two (2), is quite clear and unambiguous and reads as follows:
“The Company will not assign or reassign employees from one bid area or work area to another to cover known outages- for example, scheduled vacations, leaves of absence, training, OJI. Etc., unless and until the overtime call out process for that shift has been exhausted.”
The grievance has been denied at the first level and has been filed to the Director of Maintenance (level two), pursuant to Article 19.A.4.
Field Trip Bypass (Article 12)
The Union alleges the Company violated Article 12 by calling a Field Trip out as “unplanned” when there was more than ten (10) hours advance notice prior to the scheduled departure of the trip.
The Union is asking that all employees who were bypassed due to the improper administration of the Field Trip be made whole for all hours missed. The Company failed to respond to the first level appeal and the grievance has been sent to the Director of Maintenance, pursuant to Article 19.A.4.
VAC-DAT (Article 9)
A grievance has been filed on behalf of a member who was denied a series of VAC-DAT’S. The Company claimed that all weeks of vacation had been closed out pursuant to Article 9 B.4 and 9.C.2. The Union’s position is that although the weeks to be bided were full the work area and shift had its full compliment of employees on the day(s) in question.
Article 9.C.2 provides language for the Steward and immediate supervisor to mutually determine whether or not the day should be granted based on manpower available on the day(s) requested. The Company failed to afford the employee his rights under this section and the Union is seeking to make the employee whole for the days in question. Further the Union is asking the Company to adjust the employee’s vacation and/or sick banks accordingly.
Holiday Staffing (Article 8.B)
An ET-AL grievance has been filed stating the Company violated Article 8.B by not posting the results of Holiday Staffing properly. Moreover, once the shifts and work areas had been awarded the results were posted only in the respective work areas. This created the inability for all employees to see where they were scheduled to work on the holiday unless they actually worked in the work area they were awarded.
The Union is asking the Company to make whole all employees who were adversely affected by the improper administration of the Holiday Staffing provisions. Further, the Union is asking the Company to address the recent problems to make sure they do not occur again.