RV

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I want to keep you all informed to further email conversations with Krista Cordova, ATU757 legal rep.

You may have some of the emails below, but Ms. Cordova just replied to me on one. I have asked her to “reply all,” to keep all of us informed. Information is Power! I do appreciate her responding. I just want all of us to know the ‘answers.’

Anyway, I am sure the union leadership if ‘fighting’ Ryan on this (in doing so, fighting the good of the membership); because they do not want meetings recorded anymore than TriMet. Why??!! Again…they bargained the cameras and audio on us! They MUST KNOW that Trimet is lying tooth and nail on these disciplinary letters, etc. However, they probably are too…and here WE are…in the middle.

Please, if you have any true union values, ‘if one of us is harmed, all of us are harmed;’ please contact the union office, and/or “reply all” to this email conversation (The Union leadership is in this email conversation), and state your support for discipline/mandatory meetings to be recorded…at the discretion of the MEMBER (if taking Ryan’s wording from remedy).

I would like grievance meetings added to the recording of meetings….but would be satisfied with just the discipline/mandatory meetings…because then, maybe grievances wouldn’t even be necessary; or at least wouldn’t go past step 2 when we have EVIDENCE.

Solidarity Wins!

Dee W.

24+ year Member of ATU757

-----------------From: Dee Williams

Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 10:25 PM
To: Krista Cordova <kristac@ATU757.org>
Cc: Ryan V <ryan.viken@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Grievance and Amendments

Krista,

Thank you for the information. It isn’t “convincing.” Maybe the “specific cases” you mentioned scanning for me, are?  I still agree with Ryan… There is nothing in your excerpt that prevents a grievant from putting anything in their remedy. The arbitrator can say “no way”….but that’s up to the arbitrator. This isn’t like the ‘baseball’ arbitration we have with our WWA, correct? Can they say ‘you win, but you don’t get this part of the remedy?’ We don’t think you should be the judge and jury, as to what we can put in our remedies. A Grievance should not be denied to be FOUGHT, simply because of the remedy. Whether or not the grievance has merit, should be your main concern. This one does.

Ryan said, ‘Again, as it stands today, because our ATU Members are not allowed to record such meetings, TriMet is issuing discipline to our ATU Members with impunity and has zero accountability… leave it in, then let TRIMET deny it based on that.’ We cannot continue to allow managers to lie in their disciplinary/grievance reports. I am pretty dang sure, Ryan and I, are not the only ones who have accused mgt of this.

To me….I believe the union does not want to record meetings any more than TriMet; so you’re making excuses for the remedy. The problem is….you guys aren’t winning very winnable grievances and/or disciplinary documents. You would…if you could PROVE mgt is lying. You would….if you were actually fighting for ALL your members, and not picking and choosing. If you don’t want to record….What are you currently doing that is uncovering mgt’s lies?? What is happening to those mgrs.?

Your excerpt states ” As set forth above, in some instances the arbitrator will remand the case to the parties for them to negotiate a remedy.³⁰⁵” ….that sort of implies, s/he can force the parties to negotiate the remedy.

As for TriMet having “case law” that show recording meetings is a “permissive” subject…I DEFINITELY want to see that!! I have the University of Oregon’s “Public Employees and Oregon’s Scope of Bargaining” book, and it states under MANDATORY “Employee Discipline,” “Proposal requiring investigator not to use “threats or intimidation,” allowing tape recording of interviews.  Assn. of Oregon Corrections Employees, 14 PECBR 832, 1994 (For people reading this email, PECBR stands for “Public Employer Collective Bargaining Reporter.”). So I definitely am not going for that. This is a “mandatory bargaining subject,” and needs to be bargained immediately (with the membership’s knowledge and app. Again, the lies in DISCIPLINE process are OUT OF CONTROL!! I think they train mgt how to manipulate, lie, omit, etc…in DISCIPLINARY MATTERS! On a side note…there’s no way on God’s green earth, that you can convince me that ALL or even MOST of the MOA’s are “mandatory bargaining subjects.”

I shouldn’t have to talk to Shirley about this. You’re the one trying to convince her not to fight anything. This is too important not to settle now (not wait until contract)!! Plus all the officers are part of this email chain. They just don’t want members educated OR PROTECTED, or they would “chime” in.

I seriously do not get all this resistance from the union leadership. I can only guess, it benefits both the union leadership and company to be able to lie without any consequences. If we do it…we’re fired….but okay for mgt, etc to do it. Not acceptable. It is an abuse of power.

SOLIDARITY WINS! (Again, hopefully solidarity with union members….not management)

Dee W.

PS I would like you to “reply all,” with your answers. I appreciate you taking the time to answer, but believe we all DESERVE to know the truth, etc. If you don’t “reply all,” I will copy/paste and forward to Ryan’s contact list. I “reply all,” because I KNOW union principles. We back up each other. ESPECIALLY when we are fighting for ALL membership….not just ourselves.

I will be forwarding this email to Ryan’s recipients.

 ------------------------------

Dee, here is an excerpt from Elkori & Elkori, which is kind of like the arbitration Bible, for formulating remedies for discipline (which the grievance in question is). Let me know if you would like me to scan you the specific cases. : 

18.4.A.   Formulating a Remedy [LA CDI 100.559501; 118.801]

On finding that an employer did not have cause for discipline or discharge, arbitrators must formulate an appropriate remedy. The remedy to be fashioned will be fact-specific, dependent on the terms of the labor agreement, the subject matter giving rise to the discipline, as well as other factors, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Courts have upheld an arbitrator's consideration of mitigating factors in determining whether there is just cause for discharge unless the collective bargaining agreement clearly and unambiguously prohibits the arbitrator from doing so.³⁰² Courts will not ­hesitate in setting aside an arbitrator's decision, however, when the language of the collective bargaining agreement prohibits the arbitrator from fashioning remedies once “just cause” for an employer's action is found.³⁰³ Post-discharge misconduct also can be a factor when formulating a remedy. Arbitrators have regarded aggressive post-discharge behavior as rendering the discharged employee unfit for further employment.³⁰⁴

The traditional remedies used by arbitrators in discipline and discharge cases are reinstatement and conditional reinstatement; back pay; reducing discipline when the penalty is too severe for the offense; execution of last-chance agreements; and specially formulated remedies used in drug and alcohol abuse cases, sexual harassment cases, and cases involving violation of an employee's procedural rights. As set forth above, in some instances the arbitrator will remand the case to the parties for them to negotiate a remedy.³⁰⁵

In Dynergy Midwest Generation,³⁰⁶ the arbitrator had to deal with issues in constructing remedies for seven employees who were improperly terminated while on long-term disability. One was given no remedy because she had recovered from her disability and was able to gain employment elsewhere. Another reached retirement age by the time of the hearing. The arbitrator stated that, if not for the discharge, the grievant would have retired at age 65, because long-term disability benefits ceased at age 65, and was, accordingly, entitled to only the benefits he was denied. “Since there is no point in providing that coverage retroactively, he should instead be reimbursed for any out of pocket expenses he incurred that would have been covered by the insurance if it had been provided,” the arbitrator decided.³⁰⁷ The other grievants were allowed to retain their disability status and were granted reimbursement for health insurance expenses. However, if they retired because of their terminations and wished to revert to disability status, they were required to reimburse the employer for payments they received from the retirement plan.

BNA, Elkouri & Elkouri: How Arbitration Works, Chapter 18. Remedies in Arbitration

It is also important to note that Arbitrators are generally not allowed to fashion remedies that would change, alter, add to, or take away from the WWA. Adding a requirement that either or both of the parties record a meeting would be doing that. 

Furthermore, the parties have previously discussed recording meetings. In fact, both parties have objected to the other recording meetings in the past. The last time it was brought up by the Union, TriMet provided case law showing that recording meetings is a permissive subject of bargaining and declined to bargain. 

                      

 ----------------------------------------------------

Krista, Please Give us SPECIFIC law and/ or case studies as to what is "appropriate" for grievance remedies. I'm thinking this is just one of the many clichés you and my union rep come up with....sick of clichés....want the labor law, and/or case study.

SOLIDARITY WINS,,!!! .and just a crazy thought....we sort of want you to have the solidarity with TriMet MEMBERS and not mgt. Had to capitalize "MEMBERS"...want to try to make that stick in your head.

Dee W.

Again... Ryan please forward to all on your email list. TRANSPARENCY!!! Information is power!!

------------------------------