So what kind of position is Mike Hicks talking
about? All Dan O'Shea did was notify
the company as was procedure, recorded all of his packages in the
DIAD as was procedure, and punched out before cutoff as procedure.
Dan O'Shea on August 20, 2003 lost his case at the
panel. What did he do to put himself in that position? All he did was
follow UPS instructions as he always did. No warning notice in his
file for the past 9 months despite almost 2,000 missed pieces.
So what position is Mike Hicks talking about? Obviously now it
wasn't a Dan O'Shea position. So what's UPS' position and the Local Union 639's
(CMS Slate- Catlett/Steger/Hicks) postion?
The source can be found in the AAPGC decision of the 'Discharge of
Daniel O'Shea', Item 1:
The Company proved Grievant guilty of material
violations of methods, procedures and instructions in failing to
notify the Company of undelivered stops in a timely manner, thereby
resulting in service failures.
Dan O'Shea requested Local 639
President John Catlett for ALL of the DIAD messages showing O'Shea
did message into UPS at 2:30 p.m. Catlett (CMS Slate) refused
to get the 2:30 p.m. DIAD message for the Panel.
The Company proved Grievant guilty of recording
meetings with the company in violation of Company Policy and
instructions, rendering his conduct insubordinate.
Dan O'Shea has carried a tape
recorder in his shirt pocket for 15 years. Management and drivers
throughout the College Park
center and Burtonsville building had years of knowledge about this. Dan
O'Shea asked Local Union 639 President Catlett to
acquire the written UPS company policy against tape recording.
Catlett (CMS Slate) refused.
UPS never produced a company policy against tape recording at the
Panel. How did the company prove anything? Dan O'Shea
asked Catlett to have ex-management employee supervisors over Dan
O'Shea and Buddy Robson, a 21-year shop steward to
testify at the panel that they had a 15-year
knowledge that Dan O'Shea used a
Catlett (CMS Slate) refused.
Even with UPS' knowledge in that entire time of Dan
O'Shea using a tape recorder, he was never called
into the office with a shop steward and informed or shown he was
violating company policy and would be given a warning notice.
While both UPS and Local 639's CMS Slate member Hicks (CMS Slate
of Catlett, Steger, Hicks, etc.) were publicly stating "Dan
O'Shea shouldn't have been tape recording, it's
against the law", the Unemployment Commission of Maryland, which
knows their own laws, awarded O'Shea unemployment benefits:
“The claimant was discharged from United Parcel
Service on 05/12/03
because he allegedly recorded a meeting when he was told not to.
Insufficient information has been presented to show that the
claimant’s actions constituted misconduct in connection with the
work. As a result, it is determined that the circumstances
surrounding the separation do not warrant a disqualification under
Section 8-1002 or 8-1003 of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Law.
Benefits are allowed. If otherwise eligible.”
Under the Unemployment Provisions of the Law regarding Benefits,
claimants must be totally or partially unemployed through no fault
of his/her own to collect benefits. The Office of Unemployment
Insurance determined that Dan O'Shea
(Who acknowledged to the Commission he's been using a tape recorder
for 15 years) violated no law in taping and was unemployed through no
fault of his own.
The Company proved Grievant guilty of violation of
the clean-in/clean-out policy by his refusal to allow search of his
bags prior to his departure.
Here's the actual occurrence at the Guard House as Dan
O'Shea was escorted out of the building immediately
Dan O'Shea was instructed to
return to his package car and collect his belongings. While UPS’
manager John Pinnock stood by O'Shea's
bags, Dan O'Shea cleared out both
his delivery and tractor-trailer (feeder) lockers. Escorted by
manager John Pinnock, Dan
O'Shea was instructed to turn his identification
card in. While the security guard checked his bags, Dan
O'Shea searched for his identification card and
found it was missing. Dan O'Shea informed
manager Pinnock of the missing card.
Manager Pinnock’s reply was, “I need your
ID card.” Dan O'Shea said it was
either torn off the strap or fell off. Again manager Pinnock’s reply was, “I need your ID card.” Dan
O'Shea stated he could go and see if it’s in an
area he was at in the building. Manager Pinnock
told Dan O'Shea he could go look for
it. Dan O'Shea went into the
building and searched back past his walk path to both locker rooms
and package car and could not find it. Dan O'Shea
returned to the Guard House and stated he could not find it. Again,
manager Pinnock said, “I need your ID
card.” Dan O'Shea again went into
the building to search and again could not find it. O'Shea went back
to the Guard House and stated he could not find it. Again, manager Pinnock said, “I need your ID card.” Dan
O'Shea, believing at this time that manager Pinnock was harassing him, suggested, “John, I
can go into Human Resources, tell them my ID was lost or stolen, have
a new one made and come back out here and hand it to you.” John Pinnock stated again, “I need your ID card.” Dan
O'Shea collected his bags and left what he saw as
an abusive situation.
The Company thus had just cause to discipline
grievant. Discharge is appropriate penalty. Grievant should have been
kept on the payroll pending resolution of this grievance; and he
shall be made whole for wages and benefits lost for the period from
the date of his discharge letter through the date of issuance of this
decision. The grievance is otherwise denied.
How is it that the AAPGC discharged Dan O'Shea
without it being a cardinal infraction, awarding him full back pay,
and ruling to make him 'Whole', yet then states that "Discharge
is the appropriate penalty," ignoring the fact this 24-year
employee didn't even have a warning notice as the contract requires
in Article 50?...
The Employer shall not discharge nor suspend any employee without
just cause but in respect to discharge or suspension shall give at
least one warning notice of a complaint against such employee.
It's not Dan O'Shea's position
Mike Hicks should be questioning, he should be questioning why Local
Union 639 President John Catlett refused to investigate UPS' false
allegations against Dan O'Shea.
It's not that "The Company proved Grievant guilty", it's
that Local Union President John Catlett (and the CMS Slate) refused
to properly defend Dan O'Shea and
his contractual rights that all teamster members supposedly had.
In effect the CMS Slate (Catlett, Steger, Hicks, et al.) protected
the non-contractual issues for UPS than the contractual rights of
Teamster Local 639 members!
What Mike Hick's should question is not "Dan
O'Shea's position", but parts of the members'
contract that Local Union 639 President John Catlett (and the CMS
Slate) has now made obsolete.
Now it's all on the record, it's now a panel ruling that can be
used over and over.
An employee can now be fired for carrying a tape recorder, despite
the fact no UPS policy has ever been seen against it. (Want to bet
that UPS will still be video taping teamster members?)
In non-cardinal infractions, UPS no longer needs to
progressively discharge a teamster union member.
A warning notice is no longer needed. It is now a case UPS
can cite over and over, in any panel hearing, in the Metro D.C. district
or any district in the country.
What Teamster Local Union 639 President John Catlett did
(and Local Union 639's current officers, the CMS Slate) was make the
members' contract obsolete.
Now no one is safe.
Everyone is affected.
Want JOB SECURITY?
Vote for the
MEMBERS UNITED SLATE.