Previous
Page
Home Page
|
San Leandro, Ca. 94577
October 9, 1998 David. S. Paull, Esq.
I received a copy of the tape recording of my grievance panel hearing of September 3, 1998 (UPS-3004) on Saturday, October 3rd. I will respond to that tape after I have carefully studied it. I am forwarding a copy to you. Additionally, I have attached a copy of the letter, with supporting documents, of September 25, 1998 that Marty Frates passed out on or about Thursday, October 1, to Shop Stewards and co-workers at the UPS Oakland Hub. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time Marty has made personal documentation, regarding the details of a grievance panel hearing, available to the rank and file. Marty did not mention that he presented my information request to John Naddy during the review of August 24, 1998 (copy attached). UPS Labor Relations Manager, John Naddy, told Marty Frates, during the review, that he would not comply with the Union's request for information because UPS protects the privacy of its employees. I had requested that my hearing be postponed until UPS replied to my request. The National Labor Relations Board vigorously enforces that portion of the National Labor Relations Act that addresses our right to secure relevant information. Marty did not pursue the matter nor did he file charges with the National Labor Relations Board to force UPS to comply. Marty Frates accepted John Naddys' excuse yet he proceeded to pass out personal documentation regarding my case without my permission. Marty has not mentioned that the grievance panel was presented with documentation, by Local 315, that reveals that I am being held to a different standard and subjected to different rules than other employees in a similar situation. Local 70 has similar documentation in its possession, which was withheld. I am entitled to the information I requested. It is an ethical responsibility of the Union to secure it or explain why it isn't relevant. Marty failed on both points. A Union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA if, while acting as the employees' statutory bargaining representative, it takes or withholds action in connection with their employment because of their union activities or for any irrelevant or arbitrary reason such as an employees' race or sex." Additionally, I spoke to Chuck Mack on two occasions and Marty Frates on two occasions prior to panel in an attempt to meet with them to discuss the details of my case. Chuck Mack told me, "Marty is the expert and I'm sure he can handle that better than I can". I called Marty and repeated what Chuck Mack had told me. Marty told me, "It's a real simple case. There's nothing we need to go over." Marty states that UPS would not allow my case to be postponed, in part, because he had refused a UPS request to postpone the Jerome Otis case (UPR-8-98-23B) while two management people were on vacation. The grievance panel rules of procedure do not address postponements for vacations of panel members. Marty acknowledges this in his letter to John Naddy of August 27, 1998. Marties refusal to postpone was proper in the Jerome Otis case because Jerome had been off work since June 17th and there had been at least two previous postponements. The refusal to postpone my case was improper because both parties ignored the rules of procedure under the advisement of a yet to be named superior. Why was my case singled out as one that couldn't be postponed out of all of the cases that the panel postpones each month? It is common practice to postpone hearings by UPS or the Union without explanation. This can be confirmed by calling Shop Steward, George Saavedra. The Company and the Union have a gentleman's agreement to accept postponement, at least once, without giving a reason. This was acknowledged when George's case was postponed. This appears to be another Section 8(b)(1)(a) violation. Marty also mentions in the letter of 9-25 that he was confused regarding my doctor's slip. He did not indicate to me that he was confused prior to the grievance hearing. Marty also has indicated that he is confused about the fact that the treating physician is not obligated to offer a specific medical explanation to either the union or the employer in a situation such as this. Evidently, Mr. John Naddy and other individuals from both the Union and the Company are feigning equal confusion. Mr. Frates is still making a case for justifying my termination. Marty is attempting to justify the erroneous panel decision and is passing out incomplete information to stewards and other union members at the UPS Hub. Marty also mentions that he believes that this is all a B. S. Political Game. Is he referring to his current efforts to present a case for my termination or my efforts to regain my employment and secure my pension by seeking the truth and pointing out inconsistencies? Marty also states that Chuck Mack and Jim Hoffa have nothing to do with my case. Marty is an outspoken representative of the Hoffa Mack Slate. It is my contention that Mr. Frates does not treat employees in a fair and unbiased manner. Marty also states that my allegation that UPS gave Jim Hoffa money is really low. Marty is right and wrong about this. Yes it is really low and no it is not my allegation. It is a proven fact that The Office of the Election Officer found that UPS illegally used company funds to support Hoffa Jr. and that a UPS lobbyist contributed to his campaign. The Office of the Election Officer also found that Hoffa Jr. hid the fact that he took $167,675 from another employer. (Decisions of the Court-Appointed Election Officer, Nov. 4, 1997, and May 15, 1998.) In closing, I would like to point out that Marty has provided the Office of the Election Officer and the National Labor Relations Board with a glaring example of what I was referring to in my letter of September 28, 1998 to you. In that letter I state, "I am currently in the process of attempting to gather witness statements from co-workers that will demonstrate the openly expressed hostile and disdainful attitude which has been directed toward me by officers of Teamster Local 70." Marty states in concluding his letter of September 25, 1998 to UPS Shop Stewards, "Randy is doing what he has always done, blame everyone else for the problems of the world, in reality the only one to blame is himself." This statement further reveals the attitude that is inadvertently expressed in his letter of September 21, 1998 wherein Marty concludes, "It seems to me that this is a waste of everyone's time". Although Marty has been helpful in revealing his contempt, I will be submitting additional documentation from co-workers that are fearfully stepping forward on my behalf. Let the documentation speak for itself. Sincerely,
Randy Olson Cc:
|