Previous
Page
Home Page
|
San Leandro, Ca. 94577
October 12, 1998 David. S. Paull, Esq.
Election Office Case No. PR-295 & NLRB Case No. 32-CB-5002 Dear Mr. Paull: This letter is in further reference to the tape recording (UPD 09-98-35 I – Olson, copy enclosed) of my grievance panel hearing (UPS-3004) of September 3, 1998 which I received on Saturday, October 3, 1998. I have made a preliminary review of the tape. Following are observations that should be mentioned at this time. Minutes and seconds 1:10 Marty Frates states that he requested that the company postpone the case and the company refused. The tape does not indicate the reasons that I wanted to postpone nor the reason the refusal was acceptable by the union. Relevant facts; (a) Chuck Mack and Marty Frates refused to meet with me to discuss my case. (b) The Union and the Company ignored my information request. (c) I became physically ill due to stress, which was a direct result of the way I was being treated. 2:00 John Naddy acknowledges that I had made repeated requests to postpone my case. Mr. Naddy misleadingly states that according to the rules, postponement must be by mutual agreement. Mr. Naddy fails to mention other rules and past practices regarding postponements. Mr. Naddy compares my request for postponement to the Jerome Otis case, which I mentioned in my letter of October 9, 1998. The circumstances of that case were not similar to mine and therefore not applicable. 3:20 John Naddy states that he thinks my doctors note is a final hour ploy and not to be believed. He also confuses the issue by feigning ignorance of the nature of my doctor's excuse. He stated that my doctor's slip should have clarified my return to work under limited conditions when in fact it clearly addressed the grievance panel meeting only. Marty Frates made no comment. or objection. 4:20 Marty Frates partially explains why I was not able to attend the panel meeting. I had given Marty additional information, which he didn't mention to the panel. I am not required to turn over my doctor's reports to the grievance panel. A doctor's opinion is sufficient. The grievance panel is not qualified to rule on the validity of a physician's decision and their conclusion to do so is not supported by past practice or precept.. 4:40 John Naddy incorrectly states the date of my panel review and Marty Frates does not point out the error. Mr. Naddy states that he felt I was healthy at the time of my panel review and acknowledges that he is not a doctor. Mr. Naddy referred to my blood pressure as being the reason I wasn't attending the panel meeting when in fact my blood pressure was only one factor. Marty Frates was aware of this but didn't correct Mr. Naddy. The grievance panel is not made up of doctors. They are not qualified to override a doctor's decision. A simple phone call would have verified my doctor's slip. 5:30 An objection by Marty Frates concerning points of order is noted by the Chairman but the nature of the objection is not revealed by the tape. 5:50 Mr. Naddy states that a letter of termination was mailed to my home on August 7, 1998. I have seen no proof that this letter was ever mailed. It was allegedly sent to an address that I am unfamiliar with. I learned of the termination letter during a phone call from Marty Frates. Mr. Frates subsequently faxed me a copy of the termination letter. UPS Labor Relations Manager, John Acha, handed me a copy of the alleged certified letter on August 17, 1998 at 7:00 a.m. when I reported for work at the UPS Hub. 6:40 Mr. Naddy partially quotes Article 8, Section 1 of the Northern California Supplemental Agreement. Portions of Article 8, Section 1, which have a direct bearing on my case, are not quoted. Mr. Naddy continues to refer to a pre-panel meeting of the previous week, which I am not aware of and therefore I didn't attend. 7:20 Mr. Naddy mentions that I did not get written permission for an extended leave but he fails to state that I had talked repeatedly with Center Manager, Fred Slats and Labor Manager, Kim Muniz about my work status during my leave of absence. Neither Mr. Slats nor Ms. Muniz questioned my absence. The contract clearly states; "but in no event shall such leave of absence exceed three (3) years, except with the written consent of the Union and the Employer." This language clearly indicates that written consent must be obtained for a leave of over three years. Leaves of under three years are treated differently. The contract doesn't state that I must secure consent at the two-year mark, only that "in the absence of such consent, a request for extension of such leave shall be subject to dispute procedure". My leave was not disputed by either the Union or UPS. I should not have been subjected to a termination hearing and the matter of an extension should have been argued prior to my notifying the Company of my release to return to work. The Union does not address this point and past practice clearly indicates that I was following proper procedure during my disability. 7:40 Mr. Naddy misquotes me regarding our conversation about the contract. Mr. Naddy also leads the listener to believe that my leave was for over three years when in fact I was released to return to work after two years and eleven months. 8:15 Mr. Frates states that there is no dispute regarding the time I was off work at the local review. He failed to point out that I was off work for 2 years, 11 months and 2 weeks at the local review. I was off work for three years by the time of the panel. Again, I attempted to return to work before the three-year mark. 9:47 Marty Frates states to the grievance panel that he is making the arguments because I wanted him to. He does not state that he is speaking for the position of the union. I allege that the position of the union was and is different than my position and said position of the union was expressed off tape prior to and during the deliberations. I was not told that the Union disagreed with my position prior to my hearing, In his letter of September 25, 1998 to UPS Shop Stewards Marty states; "I made all the arguments that could be made. The Bottom line is the Committee found that Randy Olson violated the contract." I was told by Marty Frates prior to the hearing that we needn't discuss my case because it was simple. He didn't tell me that he meant a simple case for termination. 12:29 Marty Frates acknowledges that the Company states that each case is judged on its own merits and they have no information to provide. He proceeds to read my information request of August 24, 1998 to the panel. Mr. Frates offers no indication of the union's position regarding non-compliance with my request for information. 15:21 Marty Frates mentions the letter presented by Doak Jones, Business Agent at Local 315. The letter was dated July 28, 1998. It was addressed to an employee that was off work for more than three years. The employee was given 30 days to return to work or face termination. The Union, the Company and my-self are aware of additional letters, which are being withheld by the Union and the Company. 16:30 Marty Frates pointed out that I was sent a termination letter after I notified UPS that I was returning to work. Other employees that are on leave are given from 72 hours to 30 days to respond to a letter of intent to terminate employment. I was treated differently. My employment was terminated after I notified UPS of my intent to return to work. UPS formally notified me of my termination when I reported for work at 7:00 a.m. This was not addressed and/or argued at the grievance panel. 17:30 John Naddy states that what Mr. Frates says is true but that the contract language speaks for itself. He doesn't explain what he means by this and Marty Frates doesn't ask him.. 18:30 Mr. Naddy falsely states, in his conclusion, that I was off work for over three years. He also feigns ignorance of the nature of my information request. I was not requesting medical records of other employees in my information request of August 24, 1998. I was requesting documentation similar to what was provided by Local 315. Similar documentation is being withheld by Teamster Local 70 and United Parcel Service. This clearly demonstrates collusion. It is common for the Union and the Company to discuss cases prior to panel. My case was apparently discussed and a biased decision was reached before the hearing took place. The tape recording of the grievance panel hearing demonstrates that Marty Frates did not argue my case. A valid grievance panel hearing would include probing questions, disagreement, argument and discussion. The tape recording reveals nothing that resembles any of the above. The Union and the Company simply presented twisted facts in a manner that resembled a rehearsed play. The grievance panel decision of September 3, 1998 is an example of distorted logic. Contract language was not clarified, the decision was ambiguous and past practice was ignored. I am in the process of attempting to secure a transcript of the entire hearing and a roster of the union officials that participated which indicates how they voted. The most important part of the decision making process in my case is not on the tape. This would include collusive pre-panel discussions and the secret deliberation process. My fate was decided during the collusive, secret deliberations that took place when the tape recorder was shut off. We are left with a staged summary of the points of argument and an illogical, predetermined final decision. The reasoning and meaning behind the panel decision is being withheld from me. I have not received a formal written decision from either the Union or United Parcel Service regarding the panel decision. The grievance procedure can be used to serve political ends when oversight of procedure is allowed to be influenced by prejudice. The arbitrary enforcement of rules is a symptom of this fraudulent corruption. Sincerely,
Randy Olson Cc:
|