Go to: The Steward

Acting General Counsel, Office of Appeals
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20570-0001

Re: Case 32-CA-15881 (UPS)

Dear Acting General Counsel:

I am a shop steward representing members of Teamster Local 78. I have been threatened and discriminated against as a direct result of my union activities. My case has been thoroughly documented and argued before the Teamster, UPS grievance panel. I won a unanimous decision yet the NLRB won't issue a citation against my employer. The Oakland Office of the NLRB deferred my case to the grievance panel, which is standard practice in a case such as mine, and then informed me that the decision of the panel is unintelligible. This appears to be standard practice.

I filed a charge at the Oakland Office of the National Labor Relations Board (Region 32) against United Parcel Service seeking resolution under Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. My Business Agent and I have diligently done everything possible to thoroughly address the relevant issues concerning this matter. During the past eighteen months I have attended numerous pre-panel, panel and post panel meetings in a futile attempt to secure the issuance of a formal decision against my employer.

I filed an information request, which UPS eventually complied with. The reply to the information request alone illustrates, beyond question, that UPS has treated me in a discriminatory manner. I have sufficient documentation to eliminate any question of ambiguity.

The unanimous grievance panel decision, of September 9, 1997, was worded in such a way as to leave it open to interpretation. In fact, the grievance procedure rendered a decision that the NLRB found to be ambiguous. Again, this is standard procedure. My Business Agent and I have secured an official copy of the audio-tape of the detailed panel instructions to UPS. The formal panel decision that was submitted to the NLRB does not indicate the full instructions of the grievance panel. The audio-tape does. No one is formally acknowledging that United Parcel Service discriminated against me. The audio-tape clearly verifies that UPS is guilty of discrimination yet I see it nowhere on paper.

I was first told that the actions I was subjected to were an implementation of a UPS Company Policy that is initiated when the District Office is called in special circumstances. No one has explained why it is necessary to call the District Office before implementing a nondiscriminatory policy. In the reply to my information request UPS acknowledged that no formal policy exists. Then UPS changed their story at the grievance panel. I was then told that I was subjected to a contract interpretation, rather than a policy, yet there is no portion of the contract that remotely supports their position. UPS has formally advised the Teamsters that there are no company manuals or guidelines that pertain to my situation yet a company policy was initiated that doesn't exist in writing nor has it been formally communicated to anyone prior to implementation. I have included documentation referring to similar incidents involving discrimination against two other stewards that I am aware of. My case does not hinge on contract interpretation. This is a clear case of proven discrimination.

The grievance panel system is seriously flawed. This situation requires that a formal charge be issued against my employer. I have proven that UPS is guilty and my Union has acknowledged that I have won. What did I win? It is necessary that UPS be formally cited for discriminating against a steward and the citation posted and distributed to the Teamster membership for their information. This would serve as a deterrent that would hopefully cause UPS to refrain from this sort of illegal behavior.

United Parcel Service is using the system itself as a deterrent and punishment mechanism for shop stewards engaged in union activity. My documentation and the tape recording of the grievance hearing clearly illustrate the fact that UPS has not acted in a good faith manner.

I was initially threatened with being put through the system by the Automotive Manager, Mike Sousa. Mr. Sousa warned me, in front of an office full of witnesses, that it would be war if I filed any grievances. My Business Agent, Dan Varela, warned Mr. Sousa that his threats were in violation of the NLRA. UPS District Management is aware of this warning. I filed a jurisdictional and a racial discrimination grievance prior to being escorted off company property by the individuals I was investigating. I advised Mr. Sousa and Mr. Sanchez that I was on Company property to investigate their alleged discriminatory actions against Mr. Holloway. They proceeded to illegally escort me off Company property and confiscated my employee pass, which wasn't returned for over a year. Their actions successfully stopped my investigation of their alleged discrimination against Tony Holloway. Mr. Holloway is a plaintiff in the multi-state racial discrimination lawsuit filed in conjunction with the NAACP.

Look at what I have had to go through in order to try to get justice for myself and my coworkers. In the past, everyone, including myself, has succumbed to this psychological abuse. Should the average worker be expected to go through what I have endured in search of justice? The answer is no. Therefore, UPS must be formally cited.

I pray that you review all available documentation and initiate an investigation or proceedings to bring this matter to resolution. I pray that United Parcel Service be cited for violating Section 8 of the National Labor Relations act for that is what they did.

My case clearly demonstrates fundamental flaws in the grievance procedure. Up to this point the governmental safeguards, under the National Labor Relations Act, have been ineffective in securing justice. Is the directive of the NLRB served by repeatedly deferring cases to a flawed grievance system only to drop charges because decisions are ambiguous?

Please refer to my letter of March 29, 1998 to James Scott, Director of Region 32 of the NLRB, which indicates outstanding issues and concerns.

Following is a brief summation and copies of relevant documentation. Please contact me if you require additional documentation or clarification, which I can provide upon request.

Thank you for your assistance.
 
 

Charles R. Engel
Shop Steward, Teamster Local 78

Cc's listed on following page
 

Cc:
The Honorable Ellen Tauscher,
Congresswoman, 10th District
1801 North California Street, Suite 103
Walnut Creek, California 94596

Mr. James Scott
Regional Director
National Labor Relations Board
1301 Clay Street, Room 300N
Oakland, California 94612-5211

Mr. Dan Varela
Teamster Local 78
492 "C" Street
Hayward, California 94541

W. Daniel Clinton, Esq.
Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy, LLP
333 Market Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, California 94105-2173

Mr. John Naddy
United Parcel Service
8400 Pardee Drive
Oakland, California 94621

The Steward Web Page @ http://www.thesteward.net/
 

April 25, 1998

11-18-96 Varela to Muniz re Meeting of 11-15-96
11-19-96 Engel to Muniz re Request for Reply to Correspondence
12-06-96 Tony Holloway Discrimination Complaint
12-13-96 Engel to Varela re Cover Letter for Holloway Information Request
12-13-96 Engel to Varela re Request to File Charges at NLRB
12-13-96 Engel to Sousa re Tony Holloway Information Request
12-20-96 Engel to Naddy re Incident at Employee Entrance
12-27-96 Engel to Mack re Letter of 12-23-96 from Dr. Heckman (attached)
01-08-97 Engel to Naddy re Information Request
01-09-97 Worksheet for Fair Employment and Housing Complaint
01-14-97 NLRB Charge Against Employer (32-CA-15881)
01-25-97 Engel to Varela re Cover Letter Accompanying Grievance
01-25-97 The Grievance
02-11-97 Ko to Engel re Initial Handling of Charge
02-21-97 Varela to Ko re Response to Letter of 02-11-97
02-25-97 Engel to Naddy re Information Request
02-25-97 Engel to Varela re Amended Information Request
02-26-97 Ko to Engel re Listing of Pending Issues
02-26-97 Ko to Varela re Summation of Current Status of Case
02-28-97 Engel to Ko re Response to Letter of 02-26-97
02-28-97 Engel to Varela re Letters of 02-26-97
03-12-97 Engel to Varela re Monterey Grievance Panel
03-12-97 Varela to Naddy re Meeting of 02-20-97
03-21-97 Naddy to Varela re Response to Letter of 03-12-97
03-26-97 Varela to Naddy Response to Letter of 03-21-97
04-30-97 Naddy to Varela re Response to Information Request of 02-25-97
Please Note:The Saavedra case addressed the same issues as mine.
04-30-97 Naddy to Borba re Information Request from George Saavedra
05-04-97 Saavedra to Naddy re Response to Letter of 04-30-97
05-29-97 Scott to Varela re Notification of Deferral
09-02-97 Summary of Information Request Submitted to UPS
09-09-97 Statement Read to Grievance Panel
09-17-97 Engel to Varela re Second Denial of Entry to UPS Property
09-19-97 Engel to Heckman re Current Status of Situation with UPS
09-19-97 Varela to Naddy re Second Denial of Access to UPS Property
09-22-97 United Parcel Service Grievance Form
10-02-97 Naddy to Varela re Chuck Engel – Access to UPS Property
10-14-97 Engel to Scott re The Actions of John Naddy
 

Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2
4-25-98

10-23-97 Varela to Naddy re Response to Letter of 10-02-97
Jan 1998 Junk Yard Dog Newsletter re Panel Decision in Saavedra Case
02-05-98 Engel to Mack re Status of Case
02-12-98 Engel to Mack re Cancellation of Meeting Scheduled for 02-13-98
02-17-98 Engel to Mack re Meeting of 02-13-98
02-23-98 Varela to Engel re Recap of Meeting of 02-13-98
03-02-98 Engel to Joint Council 7 re Problems with the Grievance Panel
03-03-98 Engel to President Clinton re NLRB
03-03-98 Varela to Ko re Request for Action by NLRB
03-06-98 Engel to Varela re Request for Clarification of Letters of 02-23 & 03-0
Please Note: The Randy Olson Complaint addresses the same issues as mine.
03-06-98 Olson to Election Officer Mansfield re Denial of Entry to Property
03-06-98 Mack to Engel re Correction of My Interpretation of Meeting of 02-13-98
03-12-98 Joint Council 7 to Engel re Response to Letter of 03-03-98
03-13-98 Engel to Mack re Response to Letter of 03-06-98
03-16-98 Ko to Engel re Request to Withdraw Charge
03-17-98 Engel to Aloise at JC 7 re Letter of 03-12-98
03-23-98 Engel to Ko re Response to Letter of 03-12-98
03-25-98 Scott to Engel re Dismissal of Charge
03-26-98 Office of the General Counsel to Engel re Letter to President Clinton
03-26-98 U.S. Dept. of Labor to Engel re Concerns About NLRB Funding
03-29-98 Engel to Scott re Request for Information Under FOIA
04-03-98 Office of the General Counsel to Engel re Extension of Time to Appeal
04-09-98 Engel to Congresswoman Tauscher re Assistance with FOIA Request
04-14-98 Congresswoman Tauscher to Engel re Request for Assistance
04-14-98 Congresswoman Tauscher to Scott re Compliance with FOIA Request
04-14-98 Congresswoman Tauscher to Engel re Funding for the NLRB
04-21-98 Engel to Scott re Request for Investigation of Grievance Procedure
04-21-98 Engel to Scott re FOIA Inquiry
04-22-98 Engel to Congresswoman Tauscher re NLRB FOIA Compliance
04-22-98 Scott to Engel re Reply to FOIA Inquiry
04-24-98 Engel to Scott re Please Forward FOIA Info. to Washington
04-24-98 Engel to Office of General Counsel re Please Request FOIA Info.

Back to THE STEWARD Home Page