Previous Page
Home Page
|
San Leandro, Ca. 94577
September 28, 1998 David. S. Paull, Esq.
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-295, Notification of NLRB Charge (Case No. 32-CB-5002) & Request for Separate Election Office Protest Against UPS Dear Mr. Paull: This letter is in reply to the correspondence of 9-21-98 from Marty Frates, Business Agent at Teamster Local 70 and is in further reference to the above mentioned case. Please be advised that I have filed a charge (copy attached) with the Oakland Office of the National Labor Relations Board alleging that Teamster Local 70, through its officers and/or agents, has failed and refused to fairly represent me because of my dissident Union activities. In reference to the alleged violation of Article XIV, Section 2 (b) of the Election Rules, as mentioned by Mr. Frates, my filing was done in a timely manner in accordance with those rules. I became aware of the grievance panel decision of 9-3-98, that evening, when Marty Frates called me at home. Friday the 4th was the first business day after I became aware of the decision to terminate my employment. Monday the 7th of September was a holiday. I faxed the Election Officer on the morning of Tuesday the 8th , which was the second business day. My protest was filed during the stipulated two working day period and my protest was timely. In regards to Election Rules Article XIV, Section 2(d) I contend that my statement, in the Protest to the Election Officer of 9-8-98 (copy attached), was as clear and concise as possible considering the fact that I was not present for the grievance panel meeting. I am in the process of securing and assembling the documentation that will substantiate my protest. I have not been provided with a copy of the grievance (UPS-3004) by Local 70. Past experience indicates that the grievance panel decision will not clarify contract interpretation and will in fact be ambiguous. Chuck Mack, Secretary Treasurer of Teamster Local 70, has provided me with a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the Northern California Teamster-United Parcel Service Labor Management Committee. Article IV (Procedures on Grievances), Section 3 (Postponement of Cases), clearly states; "Postponement of cases on the agenda will be permitted only because of physical illness of one or more of the principles involved, or other serious reason, or upon mutual consent of the parties concerned. Notice of request for postponement shall be given to both Co-Chairmen and to the Secretary of the Labor Management Committee by the fastest possible method of communication upon knowledge of illness or agreement, preferable within forth-eight (48) hours." My doctor's excuse of 9-3-98 excuses me from the grievance panel. Mr. Frates told me, during the phone conversation of the evening of 9-3-98, that John Naddy said my doctors slip was not official because it looked like I made it up. If this were the case, a simple two-minute phone call to my physician would have validated my excuse. Additionally, Mr. Frates states in his letter of September 21, 1998 that "The Panel denied the request for postponement under advisement and heard the case." Who advised the panel to deny my request for postponement and who has the authority to do so? My case should have been rescheduled. It appears that UPS is in collusion with Teamster Local 70 in denying my postponement request. The fact that my case proceeded in violation of the Rules of Procedure represents a clear example of failure of fair representation relevant to this protest. Cases, other than mine, have been postponed. It is the responsibility of the UPS Teamster grievance panel to treat me without prejudice. The United Parcel Service Labor-Management Committee is in violation of Article 7, Section 2 (a) of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement. That section states; "The Committee shall formulate such rules of procedure as it may deem advisable, and such rules of procedure will be made known to all parties under this Agreement." I know of no co-worker or grievant, under this agreement, that has ever been provided with a copy of these rules until I received a copy from Mr. Mack. This is a blatant violation of the contract. I was not permitted to present a well-prepared case at the grievance panel at a later date. During the pre-panel meeting of August 24, 1998, I handed my information request to Mr. John Naddy, UPS Labor Relations Manager, Business Agent Marty Frates, and stewards Tom Geagan and Warren Evans. Mr. Frates asked Mr. Naddy if he was going to comply with my request for information. Mr. Naddy said "NO". When I asked Mr. Naddy why he wouldn't comply, he said; "because everyone is entitled to his or her privacy". The matter was then dropped without explanation and everyone kept their copies of the request. In his letter of August 24, 1998, Mr. Frates asked me to provide information similar to what I had requested from the company. The union and/or the company should provide me with the information I requested. My information request was met with a request for me to provide the information. The letter did not make sense and there was nothing for me to respond to as I do not possess the information, so I did not respond. Mr. Frates did not secure the information that I had requested under Article 7, Section 2, paragraph (b) of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement and Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. I have not yet been provided with a copy of the grievance panel tape. Mr. Mack requested the tape in his letter of 9-25-98 to Jerry Hammack at Teamsters' Joint Council No. 38. I am waiting for a reply. My well-known history as a political opponent to Chuck Mack, my past support of the Ron Carey slate and current support of the Tom Leedham, pro-reform slate, is ample justification for allegations of collusion. I ran against Chuck Mack, on the pro-Democracy, pro-reform slate in 1995 for the position of Secretary Treasurer of Local 70. Please consider this letter to be a formal request that UPS be cited based on the apparent collusion in denying me a fair hearing at the grievance panel. The actions of UPS constitute a separate election protest. This request is being filed in a timely manner. The Rules of Procedure, that Chuck Mack sent me on September 25, 1998, constitutes confirmation of my formal notification of the Grievance Panel Rules and marks the date I became formally aware of the Article IV (Procedures on Grievances), Section 3 (Postponement of Cases), violation of the rules of procedure that I am protesting. UPS and Local 70 were acting in concert with pro-Hoffa-Mack agents of the Teamsters. Panel members Bob Clausen, Larry Ferrigino, Doug O'Neal and Chairperson, Ed Quintel are all Hoffa-Mack supporters and sat on the panel that decided my case. This forum has clearly demonstrated prejudice and it is virtually impossible for me to ever get a fair hearing. 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. This process will be difficult as I am not permitted to enter UPS property and it is unlikely that the Teamsters will be cooperative and expeditious in providing pertinent information. I will forward witness statements and other relevant data to your office as soon as they are obtained, hopefully within the week . Both the Union and the Company are in violation of their own rules. My employment with United Parcel Service should be reinstated immediately. Sincerely,
Randy Olson Cc: Sharon Chabon, Investigative Attorney, NLRB (Case No. 32-CB-5002) Attachments:
|