United States Government
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region 32
1301 Clay Street, Room 300N
Oakland, CA 94612-5211
| February 11, 1997 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(510) 637-3272 |
Charles Engel
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Re: United Parcel Service
Case 32-CA-15881
Dear Mr. Engel:
I am writing in connection with the charge which you filed in the above
case, which has been assigned to Gary Connaughton for investigation. Mr.
Connaughton is busy wrapping some other cases up, so I have taken the liberty
of reviewing your charge. Before we proceed too much further with the investigation,
I need to know several things from you:
-
Based on my review of the file so far, I'm not sure if your charge is meant
to include your 2-day suspension, which apparently directly contributed
to your leaving work on stress right after you served that suspension.
If your charge intends to include that matter, then I think we have a problem,
since it is my understanding that your suspension reflected the settlement
of a grievance over your July 15, 1996 discharge letter, which settlement
you agreed to (without admitting any wrongdoing). If that is so, then under
our established deferral policies it may well be that we will defer to
that grievance settlement and not proceed further on that matter. Please
advise me whether this is part of your charge.
-
With respect to the information aspect of this case:
-
Is Local 78 satisfied with the company's November 15, 1996 statement that
the company policy for car washers was the contract? And did Local 78 get
a copy of the orientation letter that was mentioned in Dan Varela's November
18, 1996 letter to Kim Muniz of UPS?
-
Have you received any response to your January 8, 1997 information request?
And is the Union supporting you in that request, and has it made any similar
request on i5ts own behalf? And has the company discussed your January
8, 1997 information request with the Union?
-
With respect to your recent expulsion from the Oakland UPS facility, are
you the only steward at that facility? And if not, have other stewards
encountered problems with access, or do the access problems only involve
stewards who are not working for one reason or another, i.e., off on workers'
compensation, etc.
As a final matter, I note that you named Local 78 as the charging party
in this case. I need to know whether Local 78 knows that you have filed
this charge on its behalf and whether it has authorized you to do that,
either before or after the fact. I understand that you are a shop steward,
but I still need to know whether you are authorized to file charges on
Local 78's behalf.
At this time, I'm not sure if we are dealing here with just a contract
interpretation problem, or a breach-of contract situation and not an unfair
labor practice, or what. Your response to the above questions will allow
us to get a better fix on what this case involves. Please get back to me
on the above matters as soon as you can, and by Friday, February 28, 1997,
if at all possible. Thanks for your cooperation, and if you have any questions
about the above, give me a call at the above number.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth Ko
Supervisory Attorney
Back to NLRB Appeal
Back to THE STEWARD Home Page 