June 8, 2010: Teamsters from several locations have reported seeing ads in local newspapers indicating that Holland Motor Freight, the largest YRC regional trucking subsidiary, is looking to hire. Others report that all laid off Teamsters have returned to work at their terminals.
This is good news.
But thousands of brothers and sisters at YRC remain on layoff status. They should be first in line for any openings at Holland. Article 3.2 of the National Master Freight Agreement calls for any TMI employer to give preferential hiring status to those laid-off from other TMI employers. That means YRC Teamsters, in seniority order, should get first dibs on any jobs prior to Holland advertising and taking applicants off the street.
Make sure your local is on top of any hiring at Holland, and enforcing the contract.
Comments
newpenn107 replied on Permalink
Our Terminal at NewPenn has
Our Terminal at NewPenn has hired From the Holland List. But don't Take the hiring as a sign that freight has picked up too much. We have hired to basically replace guys that left. Our seniority list has about 25 less members then it did 2 years ago
canaryinthemine replied on Permalink
Hiring Laid off Teamsters
Let's see how serious the Teamster leadership is about hiring laid-off teamsters. New language Art.5sec.5 allows for transfers if you've been laid off longer than 30 days. ABF had 7 retirees at the Pittsburgh Pa. terminal, here in Greensburg Pa. 25 miles away we had 2 men laid off for almost a year. When we tried to transfer them , ABF offered them positions in Lansing ,Mich or another small terminal in S. Carolina and refused to transfer either man to Pgh. Since that day they've allowed our 2 men to work as casuals at Pgh. and have hired several people off the street. One of the laid off men had worked casual at Pgh. several years prior when they were begging for people. The labor man for ABF has told me that "ABF will hire whomever they want, for as cheaply as they can." IN other words, they wish to ignore the transfer provisions of Art. 5, sec. 5 in favor of wage progression for new hires. Rather discriminatory, What? Needless to say, we'll be at Eastern Conference Grievance Hearings, Myrtle Beach July 19th, with grievances in hand. If the company wins this one, take your black magic marker and scratch out Art. 5. sec. 5.
canaryinthemine replied on Permalink
Lost the grievance
As I said, if we lost this grievance, scratch Art. 5, sec. 5 out of your contract book. We lost because the Union members of the panel said that the member in question "did not immediatly re-file his request for transfer after the company denied him his right to transfer". Although it doesn't do any good for 6 months, the Union panel members determined that this was the only "technicality" that they could shoot this grievance down with. The company panel members sat there with their arms folded and let the Union panel members do their dirty work. Our own Union officials picked our case apart. The upshot of all this is, that in an 8 month period, ABF hired 5 guys off the street, and within commuting distance (20 miles) 2 ABF employees remain on layoff for 18 months. One gentleman has gotten disgusted with this so-called "justice" that he has quit. No explanation, no contractural language, just a denial of the grievance. I've asked if there was a memorandum of agreement on Art. 5, sec. 5, there is not, so all the language is in the book. Where does it say you must re-file your intention immediatly once you've been denied , or turn down an opportunity to transfer? A good hint as to why this miscarriage happened is that during preliminary meetings with the company, the labor man stated that ABF will hire anyone for as cheap as they could get them. This was in response to my question as to whether ABF had any responsibility toward providing jobs to existing employees instead of hiring off the street. It's evident that wage progression had everything to do with this grievance being lost. Isn't it wonderful that our elected officials didn't see this? I hope it was mere ignorance that made our Union officials on the panel take an active role in shooting down this grievance. It would sicken me to think that a deal was made to keep from transferring existing employees on layoff to a full-time position so that the company could hire off the street and have 3 year wage progression discounted employees. Maybe I'm naive.......
Add new comment