September 16, 2009: The 1,400 U.S. mechanics who maintain United Parcel Service Inc's (UPS.N) worldwide fleet of 263 aircraft have authorized a strike, union officials said on Tuesday, but contract talks will continue later this month.

The vote represents a ratcheting up of the pressure in negotiations between the two sides just as UPS, the world's largest shipping company, enters its busiest season.

Click here to read more at Reuters.

September 11, 2009: In a tough economy, management is squeezing UPS Teamsters more than ever.

We’ve got contract language to protect us. So why isn’t it being enforced?

In a tough economy, management is pushing UPS Teamsters harder than ever.

“Our District Manager told us straight out at a PCM that volume is down so we’re going to have to squeeze more out of you,” said Ken Reiman, a Local 804 member in Long Island, N.Y.

Interviews with UPSers across the country reveal the tools the company is using to apply this squeeze—and the weak contract enforcement that helps management get away with it.

The Squeeze

Across the country, management is demanding higher stops per hour. Ride-alongs are up, both three-day rides and one-day “snapshots.” The company is breaking up routes—especially on Mondays and Fridays—and saddling drivers with additional stops and extra hours.

“Members are complaining about punching out at nine o’clock at night. Some want the hours—but a lot of people would like more time at home with their families,” Reiman said.

Our union can’t make these problems disappear. This is UPS after all. But stronger contract enforcement can protect members from the worst abuses.

International Striking Out

Instead, contract enforcement is at an all-time low. The International Union won just four out of 55 cases at the last national grievance panel. Nationally, 9.5 violations are at an all-time high, but 9.5 grievance settlements are down.

“Everyone is just working themselves into the ground,” says Matt Higdon, a shop steward in Atlanta Local 728.

“There’s overwhelming frustration on everything having to do with contract enforcement. Our business agent does a great job. The problem is at the top. Hoffa is in UPS’s pocket and everything trickles down from there,” said. Higdon.

“We’ve got to keep filing grievances and stay relentless. But we’ve also got to get to the source of the problem—and that means changing the leadership at the International Union,” Higdon said.

TDU is about using education and unity to win change.

“Management is really dropping the hammer. Members need to know what their rights are—and how we can make a difference through solidarity and good leadership. That’s where TDU comes in,” said John Virgen a package steward in Sacramento Local 150.

Management Admits The Squeeze Is On

“Our District Manager told us straight out at a PCM that volume is down so we’re going to have to squeeze more out of you.

“Members are complaining about punching out at nine o’clock at night. Some want the hours—but a lot of people would like more time at home with their families.”

Ken Reiman, UPS Package Car Driver, Local 804, New York

Share Contract Enforcement Strategies at the TDU Convention

“The TDU Convention is our chance to compare notes with UPS Teamsters from across the country.

“I’m looking forward to sharing strategies on how we can protect members from production harassment and unfair discipline. I also want to hear how UPS is using new technology, like telematics.”

Mark Day, Local 705 Package Car Steward, Chicago

Click here to find out more and register for the TDU Convention.

September 11, 2009: UPS Teamsters are increasingly getting just dimes on the dollar for 9.5 violations—when they get anything at all. The problem is epidemic and infecting areas where members historically have been able to win full penalty pay.

Teamsters in Oklahoma Local 886 have been used to seeing their grievances paid dollar for dollar. But after a year of waiting, the Southern Region panel has ruled on 9.5 grievances filed between June and October of last year. Under the settlement, the panel tossed out the first grievance each driver filed. And all subsequent grievances were settled at 40 cents on the dollar.

“This is the first time I’ve seen a 9.5 grievance settled less than dollar for dollar at my building,” said Domingo Ramirez, a package car driver and steward at the Enid center.

“We have drivers working until eight or nine every night. This is hard on our families. This settlement sends the wrong message to management, that they can keep putting more and more work on us.”

September 11, 2009: As we go to press, Teamsters Local 2727 is scheduling a strike vote of 1,400 UPS plane mechanics. The company wants Teamster mechanics and retirees to start contributing to their health insurance premiums. Management also wants to reduce coverage.

Industry analysts have told the press that our union has real leverage because a strike could affect UPS at its busiest time of the year.

Management is dismissive of the strike vote. UPS spokesman Mike Mangeot said: “It’s contract posturing and it has absolutely no legal significance whatsoever.”

Because they are covered by the Railway Labor Act, the mechanics can only strike if the National Mediation Board says UPS and the Teamsters are at impasse.

September 11, 2009: UPS announced after-tax profits of $445 million for the second quarter of 2009, up from $401 million in the first quarter.

In the worst economy in our lifetimes, UPS has turned $846 million in after-tax profits in the first six months of the year.

By comparison, FedEx lost $779 million from Dec. 1, 2008 to May 31, 2009—the most recent six months for which the company’s earnings info is available.

UPS’s volume and profits are both down from last year. UPS made $873 million in the second quarter of 2008.

August 14, 2009: Teamsters Local 2727 will take a strike vote of 1,400 UPS plane mechanics by Sept. 14.

The company wants Teamster mechanics and retirees to start contributing to their health insurance premiums. Management also wants to reduce coverage.

Because they are covered by the Railway Labor Act, the mechanics can only strike if the National Mediation Board says UPS and the Teamsters are at impasse.

July 28, 2009: An International Brotherhood of Teamsters local violated federal labor law when a union steward told a United Parcel Service Inc. employee in the presence of other employees that the union dropped his grievances because he had run against an incumbent in a union election and because the company did not like him, the National Labor Relations Board held July 24 (Teamsters Local 886 (United Parcel Serv. Inc.), 354 N.L.R.B. No. 52, 7/24/09 [released 7/27/09]).

Reversing an administrative law judge's dismissal of the complaint, Chairman Wilma B. Liebman and Member Peter C. Schaumber found that the steward's statement was within the ambit of his grievance-processing duties. The board also found that the employee who heard the statement could reasonably have believed that the steward was acting on behalf of Teamsters Local 886 when he connected another employee's protected activity with a refusal to process that other employee's grievances.

The local's revision of its bylaws following a 1977 board ruling in a similar case involving the same local did not change the scope of stewards' authority, the board said. It held that the local violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, which prohibits unions from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7.

Hawkins Overheard the Conversation

The case involves employees working for UPS in Oklahoma City. The employee who had the relevant discussion with a union steward was Michael Reynolds, while the employee who heard the discussion and was the focus of the board's analysis was Thomas Hawkins. Reynolds had been a Teamsters member for 25 years, had about six years of experience as a steward at UPS and at a previous employer, stopped serving as a steward at UPS in June 2007, and ran unsuccessfully in November 2007 for a union trustee position. Hawkins had been a union member for 17 years but had never been a steward or held any other union position.

Reynolds and Hawkins were in the office of Tommy Kitchens, an assistant business agent for the union, on Jan. 28, 2008, along with Wes Pruitt, a union steward who was on the slate of candidates that defeated Reynolds in the union election. Reynolds asked Kitchens about the status of two grievances Reynolds had filed in November 2007. Kitchens said the union found there was no contract violation and would not pursue either grievance. Nothing in this first conversation was challenged as illegal.

The following day, the steward Pruitt approached Reynolds, Hawkins, and another employee sitting together in a break room. Pruitt and Reynolds began discussing Reynolds's grievances. Hawkins overheard the steward say to Reynolds: “You lost your grievances because the company doesn't like you and you ran against them.”

Reynolds filed an unfair labor practice charge regarding Pruitt's statement, and the NLRB general counsel issued a complaint alleging that the union made a coercive statement to employees in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). An ALJ dismissed the complaint in August 2008, finding that Reynolds could not have reasonably believed that the steward was acting on behalf of the union when he made the statement.

The ALJ cited Reynolds's knowledge of the local union's bylaws, which the judge found specify the limited nature of stewards' authority. The judge also found several “unusual circumstances”—that Reynolds knew that Pruitt was pretending to have inside information regarding the grievance and that Pruitt had played no role in the two grievances, that Reynolds knew that the bylaws and the bargaining contract limited stewards' authority, that Reynolds already knew that the union found his grievances lacked merit, and that Reynolds knew that Pruitt was speaking for himself and not the union.

The ALJ did not consider whether the steward's statement was illegal on the ground that Hawkins also heard it and could reasonably have believed that Pruitt acted on behalf of the union.

Bylaws Change Made No Difference

In a prior case involving the same union local, Teamsters Local 886 (Lee Way Motor Freight), 229 N.L.R.B. 832, 95 LRRM 1137 (1977), the board found that a steward was acting within the scope of his grievance-processing authority, as defined by the bylaws and the bargaining contract, when he said to an employee who had requested an investigation into a union election: “If you should get fired there will be no one [to] back you.” The board found that the stewards were authorized to receive and investigate grievances and that although stewards did not have the authority to refuse a grievance, there was no evidence that rank-and-file members knew that.

In response to that board ruling, Local 886 changed its bylaws to state:

“Stewards are not officers or agents of the Local Union. ... A steward may take action to represent an aggrieved member by presenting the member's grievance to the Employer's designated representative. If this does not result in an answer that is satisfactory to the member, the member may request further representation by his Business Agent or the President. ... Any other action of a steward by oral or written communication shall not be authorized by this Local Union nor shall this Local Union be liable for any such written or oral communications.”

But the board found that the bylaws change made no difference. As in Lee Way Motor, “the current bylaws and collective-bargaining agreement authorize a steward to receive, investigate, and process grievances and to transmit authorized messages that are in writing or of a routine nature,” the board said. It found that “Pruitt's statement, which purported to convey the reasons why the [union] dropped Reynolds' grievances, is even more squarely within the ambit of grievance processing than the steward's statement” in the earlier case. And like the steward in Lee Way Motor, “Pruitt is an agent whose basic responsibility is to administer the grievance machinery,” the board said.

Because “an employee like Hawkins could have reasonably believed that Pruitt was acting on behalf of the [union] when he made the statement linking Reynolds' protected activity with the [union's] refusal to process his grievances,” the statement violates Section 8(b)(1)(A), the board said. It found it unnecessary to decide whether the statement also violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) regarding Reynolds because such a finding would not affect the remedy—ordering the union to cease and desist from making such coercive statements and posting a notice in the union's offices and meeting hall.

Local 886 argued that Hawkins, like Reynolds, knew about the bylaws change and the purported limits on stewards' authority. But the board found that “[t]here is no evidence that Hawkins was even aware of the changes to the bylaws or the [union's] reasons for making them” and that the changes “did not curtail a steward's authority in any meaningful way.”

The revised bylaws' statement that “stewards are not officers or agents” directly conflicts with the specific authorization of stewards to process grievances, the board said. It also found that the language allowing union members to request further representation by a business agent or the union president “does not expressly limit a steward's participation to the initial grievance steps.” And the bylaws' statement “purporting to disclaim the [union's] liability for a steward's unauthorized communication is not determinative under the common law of agency where, as here, the steward is empowered generally to act in the area of grievances,” the board said.

Unlike Reynolds, Hawkins never was a union steward or officer and testified that he was unfamiliar with the union bylaws, the board said. It found there is no evidence “that Hawkins knew, as Reynolds may have, that Pruitt was only speaking for himself or that Pruitt was only pretending to have inside information about the grievances.”

By Susan J. McGolrick

The decision appears in Section E and may be accessed here.

July 24, 2009: UPS announced after-tax profits of $445 million for the second quarter of 2009, up from $401 million in the first quarter.

Given the global economic downturn, UPS’s volume and profits are both down from last year. UPS made $873 million in the second quarter of 2008. Market Watch reports that Brown’s earnings were in line with analyst expectations.

In the worst economy in our lifetimes, UPS has turned $846 million in after-tax profits in the first six months of the year. By comparison, FedEx lost $779 million from Dec. 1, 2008 to May 31, 2009—the most recent six months for which the company’s earnings info is available.

Brown knows how to make money—but not how to recognize the working Teamsters who make its profits possible. Drivers across the country report that management is laying off drivers, combining routes, and saddling up the remaining workforce with excessive overtime.

Enforcing 9.5 language (Article 37) and the contract provisions requiring UPS to maintain 20,000 combo jobs (Article 22.3) would mean job security and full-time job opportunities for Teamsters who need them.

In this tough economy, working Teamsters continue to deliver results. It’s time for our International Union to do the same.

Click here to read UPS’s press release on its Second Quarter profits.

Click here to read a Market Watch report on UPS profits.

July 22, 2009: WASHINGTON — The American Conservative Union, which bills itself as the nation’s oldest conservative grass-roots lobbying organization, has found itself fending off charges that it put its principles up for sale.

In a letter sent last month to FedEx, the group offered its support in a bitter legislative dispute with United Parcel Service, but said it wanted a contract of up to $3.4 million to wage a campaign to win support for FedEx’s position. When FedEx did not agree, executives at the company said, the conservative group’s chairman, David A. Keene, turned around and signed a letter using the group’s logo endorsing the UPS view and blasting FedEx.

Click here to read more at The New York Times.

July 21, 2009: Teamsters have a right to discuss union issues and exchange union-related literature at work.

TDU is at work defending and expanding that right.

Teamsters have the right to distribute Convoy Dispatch [now Teamster Voice] and other union-related materials at the workplace, during nonwork times and in nonwork areas. Most Teamsters take these rights for granted. But some employers need to be reminded of this fact, via legal action to protect the rights of all Teamsters.

Anheuser-Busch (InBev), at its Los Angeles brewery, needs a reminder that its Teamster workers do have rights. NLRB charges are pending after the company denied workers the right to distribute leaflets opposing a proposed merger to dissolve their Local 896. Workers successfully stopped that merger, but A-B management insists they have the right to “approve” literature that members distribute in the break room and other nonwork areas.

UPS management in Lumberton, North Carolina, illegally told steward Nichele Fulmore that she could not distribute Convoy Dispatch near the drivers’ counter, before work starts, when drivers are off the clock. The NLRB has issued a complaint against UPS and the case is set for trial soon.

The UPS case is important because it involves a so-called “mixed” area in the workplace, which may be a work area during work hours, but is also an area where workers can visit or drink coffee—and distribute TDU and other union-related materials—during nonwork times there, even though the same area becomes a work area at other times.

“We can not allow anyone or organization to control the flow of information,” said Fulmore, a package driver in Local 391. “Those in power—including UPS—would much rather keep you ignorant because they realize that ‘Knowledge Is Power.’”

TDU counsel Barbara Harvey has taken both cases, to ensure that all Teamsters retain the right to discuss union issues and distribute TDU and other union-related materials in nonwork areas during nonwork times.