Latest
Updates - June 29th, 2005
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
As you are aware, the company was maintaining the posiion that
unless an employee holds currrently, or held in the past, a permannet
position, they would not be eligible for the SUB benefits outlined
in article 4 of the JSA.
However, they have changed their position on this a number of
times and were not consistent across the System. In other words,
some members who recieved SUB one year, were denied in subsequent
years, though their situations had not changed. The matter had
been settled previously "Without Prejudice or Precedent"
which does not bind the resolve, so the company went back to denying
claims early in 2004. And this time they were clear that they
were going to hold strong to this position and began denying benefits
to many members who previously had been eligible.
When we became Teamsters in June of 2004 we recognized this as
an obvious violation and immediatley grieved the issue.
The company denied the grievance, so we discussed it at a grievance
resolution meeting and they refused to alter their position. Having
no other recourse, as members were being severely burdened by
the Company's position, we slated it as one of two cases we would
take to CROA in July, 2005.
Scott Seeney, the Manager of Labour Relations, and I continued
to discuss the issue and on June 28, 2005 we came to resolution.
It should be noted that the only time this Union will agree to
"Without Prejudice or Precedent" is at a grievance resolve
meeting prior to slating for CROA or at expedited arbitration.
Other than that, we want the language that would be provided if
won at formal arbitration. So, Brothers and Sisters, staying true
to that policy, this resolve is NOT without prejudice or precedent
and has been resolved as follows,
"
1. The Company agrees that on a go forward basis, an employee
when laid off, need not have held a permanent position in order
to be eligible for SUB benefits.
2. The Company
agrees to issue instructions to this effect to those that administer
SUB benefits.
3.
The Company agrees to compensate employees who have active and
timely grievances concerning the denial of their SUB benefits,
when laid off, solely because they had never held a permanent
position. To this end, the Company and the Union agree to work
together to establish a complete list of all employees who were
so affected from January 1, 2004 to date. This list should be
finalized by September 30, 2005.
4.
The Company agrees that, in spite of the divergent positions,
the position advanced by the Company should not be implemented
until the Company has had the opportunity to address the issue
through collective bargaining.
The parties agree that this does not alter any other eligibility
criteria, exemptions or restrictions contained within the Job
Security Agreement."
As you can see from item #3 there is a good deal of compensation
coming to a number of members. Therefore, I ask that you distribute
this letter widely and make sure that anyone who was turned down
for SUB benefits gets in touch with their Director or my office
ASAP.
Even if you were turned down for reasons other than "not
having held a permanent position". We will go over each one
on a case by case basis and determine eligibility. I don't mind
doing the extra work if it will insure that no one slips through
the cracks.
I want to thank all who were involved in this case for their assistance,
but especially Brothers Brake, Doherty, Daniel, Grandmaison, Terry
and Directors Simcak, Wilson, Helfenbein, Delongchamps and Spikula
for getting me the information needed to argue this matter properly.
As in all things that we do, it is a group effort 'cause that's
what makes a Union strong.
Fraternally,
Bill Brehl
National Coordinator
TCRC MWED
