The Steward March 2, 1998
Chuck Mack, President
Robert Morales, Vice President
Ralph Torrisi, Secretary-Treasurer
Stephen Mack, Recording Secretary
Casey Sawyer, Trustee
Ernie Yates, Trustee
Sergio Lopez, Trustee
The Executive Board
I.B.T. Joint Council 7
150 Executive Boulevard
San Francisco, California 94134-3392
Phone: 415-467-7768
Dear Members of the Executive Board:
I have recently learned that the National Labor Relations Board is a victim of Congressional budget cutting. Kenneth Ko, the NLRB deferral attorney handling my case, has informed me that the NLRB can no longer afford to take the necessary steps in order to cite offenders of those portions of the National Labor Relations Act that acknowledge the special status of and grant protection to Union Stewards. Other portions of the Act have obviously been neutralized yet left on the books as a sort of placebo. Portions of the NLRA have no intrinsic remedial value. They are on the books to simply appease or falsely reassure the American worker. I am told that we must rely on the grievance procedure. A procedure that apparently circumvents true justice and delivers an illusion of legitimacy.
I filed a charge with the National Labor Relations board over a year ago. The NLRB deferred my case to the grievance panel. This is standard practice in a case of this sort. My Teamster Business Agent, Dan Varela, and I carefully prepared my case. We dealt with numerous roadblocks that delayed my case for approximately a year. We eventually won a unanimous decision of the grievance panel in Sparks, Nevada. The entire panel instructed United Parcel Service to follow the contract. The UPS representatives were then asked to leave the room. After they left the room the panel explained, in great detail, that I won everything. They convinced me that I won. I had been vindicated! I then did as the panel instructed me. I waited a week and returned to work. United Parcel Service had been instructed to return my employee pass and grant me equal access to the property. The Company informed me that I was confused. I was told that the union and I really didn't understand the panel decision. I was informed that my pass would not be returned at that time. I was told that I had to make an appointment to enter company property. I was told that UPS actually won and I lost. It seems that the Company was not formally notified that they lost. They weren't in the room when the panel decision was explained to me. I cant appeal the case because I won a unanimous decision. I asked Steve Mack, Secretary Treasurer of Teamster Local 78 and Recording Secretary of Joint Council 7, "How could this possibly happen?" His response was; "We really donut want to embarrass the Company." Mr. Mack was concerned that UPS management would be embarrassed if they were criticized in front of their workers. Am I expected to believe that these individuals, who hold power over my livelihood, are just a bunch of sensitive guys? After a year and a half of humiliation and frustration I find this hard to buy.
The employer and the Union know that the NLRB is powerless to enforce the NLRA. If government wont enforce our rights the courts musts do so. I was told that Teamster Local 78 had filed in court to secure compliance with the panel decision. I have learned that this wasn't true. Steve Mack has informed me that it is not in our best interest to clarify gray areas of the contract. Mr. Mack stated; "The clarification of gray areas only leads to new gray areas." He also stated that; "The clarification of Company policies and procedures is not in the best interest of the Teamsters." I, Charles Engel, believe that effectively addressing new areas of workers’ rights and contract interpretation is an indication of a dynamic grievance procedure that actually works. Company policies are subject to collective bargaining. This isn't something we should avoid. The current course of action successfully empowers the employer and leads one to question who the Union is actually representing.
The process has blocked my case from going to a higher authority and rendered a decision that is vague and incoherent. A unanimous vote is essentially a loss because justice is not forthcoming. A unanimous vote is strategic in preventing the worker from going to a higher authority. The question is; "Whom does this strategy serve?" This type of decision benefits the treasuries of both the Employer and the Union. Arbitrators needn't be hired and panel decisions are rarely brought to the attention of the membership. Grievance panel meetings are held behind closed doors and panel decisions are released to the membership at the whim of the participants. This process certainly doesn't serve the membership of Joint Council 7!
Am I to be denied the "special status" protection afforded shop stewards under the National Labor Relations Act? Does anyone have the authority to provide the National Labor Relations Board with a decision that is coherent? Does anyone in the United States have the authority or the will to enforce these laws? This requires immediate executive and/or legislative action.
I invite you to join with me in an effort to remedy this situation. Please reply.
Fraternally,
Charles R. Engel
Shop Steward, Teamster Local 78
Cc:
The Honorable William J. Clinton, President of the
United States
Alexis M. Herman, United States Secretary of Labor
The Honorable Barbara Boxer, United States Senator
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator
The Honorable Ellen Tauscher, Congresswoman, 10th
District
James Scott, Regional Director, NLRB (Case # Case
32-CA-15881UPS)
John J. Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO
Tom Sever, I.B.T. General Secretary-Treasurer
Ken Mee, I.B.T. West Coast Vice President
Dan Varela, Business Agent, Teamster Local 78
Matt McLoone, Alternate Shop Steward, Teamster Local
78
The Steward Web Page @ http://thesteward.hypenet.com/
Certified # P 195 619 862 RRR
