From Union President Ronnie Pineda
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
The Union and the Company, along with our respective legal counsel met to arbitrate grievances filed on behalf of the membership. On Monday December 6, 2010 Executive Vice President Denson, Attorney, Adam Stern and myself were prepared to present our arguments before the agreed Arbitrator regarding the assignment of crew positions in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.
The Company presented a defense that was never argued during the grievance process Steps 1, 2 or 3 and their defense is that this grievance was not an arbitral case under the language of the CBA. Obviously, we disagree and our Counselor, Adam Stern did a magnificent job stating that fact. The Arbitrator in this case will make a decision on whether this case can be arbitrated. We anticipate a favorable decision and look forward to presenting the merits of this grievance once his decision is rendered.
All parties again met on Wednesday December 8, 2010 to present our case regarding the Company’s hiring of part-time employee Marvin Crayon. The collective bargaining agreement has express language describing eligible candidates for part-time employment in our shop and it is our position that Mr. Crayon did not meet that criteria.
The Company’s defense in this case is that they were not notified that the Union sought to arbitrate this matter following their Step 3 denial of our grievance. That was disputed by our Counselor and we presented the document appealing their step 3 denial including our intent to arbitrate. The Company’s defense is that they did not receive the e-mail containing our response to their Step 3 denial. We possess the proof that the e-mail was sent to the Company and will present this evidence to the arbitrator in this case for her decision on Timeliness. The company never informed the Union of what the timeliness issue was and like previous arbitrations chose to present this defense the morning of arbitration. Upon receipt of the arbitrator’s presumed favorable decision, we are prepared to present the merits of this case at that time.
Each time we have met to arbitrate our grievances; the company has presented a different defense apparently in hopes of one of them sticking to the wall. Brothers and Sisters, it should be obvious that the company has no intention of resolving our disputes in a harmonious fashion as the contract states, and they agreed to. These defenses that the company is arguing are intended to stall and delay in hopes that the members will lose faith in the process and decertify the union next year. We have waited too long for resolution and we need to stand steadfast and allow the arbitration process to finally obtain the unbiased ruling on the true intent and agreements of our 1st contract. SVP Russ Newton and Tribune hopes there won’t be a second contract so all of these grievances will disappear and our fight against their punishment, disrespect and harassment for organizing will have been lost without a fight!!
In Solidarity,
President,
Ronnie Pineda
Additional messages can be viewed at Save Our Trade
