Article 52 Of Labor Agreement Ups

This complaint originated in a kind of altercation that took place on April 29, 1999 between Loftis and an employee, Kenneth Ray Adkins („Adkins”), at the UPS plant located at 500 Callahan Road in Knoxville, Tennessee. Local 519 asserts in this action that Loftis was unfairly fired for violating UPS` „zero tolerance” directive against workplace violence, which is not part of the collective agreement between UPS and Local 519. Local 519 argues that the arbitrator`s decision to maintain Loftis` dismissal unlawfully violated the negotiated terms of the agreement. UPS, for its part, argues that it terminated Loftis properly for an important reason and that, therefore, the arbitrator`s decision must be enforced. The standard of verification of an arbitrator`s arbitral award is very narrow; Therefore, the courts must pay serious tribute to the arbitrator`s decision. United Paperworkers Int`l. Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.P. 29, 36-37, 108 p.

Ct. 364, 98 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1987). In the Sixth Circuit, the verification of an arbitral award by a court is „one of the narrowest standards of forensic auditing in all American jurisprudence.” Lattimer-Stevens Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO, Dist. 27, subdist.

5, 913 F.2d 1166, 1169 (6 cir.1990). The reason for this reluctance is the explicit legal policy that favours the private settlement of labour disputes. See 29 U.S.C. §173(d) („Final adaptation by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared a desirable method of resolving disputes arising from the application or interpretation of an existing collective agreement.”). This policy „would be undermined if the courts had the final say on the merits of the rewards.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Duck. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.P. 593, 596, 80 p. Ct. 1358, 4 L.

Ed. 2d 1424 (1960). Therefore, where a collective agreement provides for a private mechanism for reconciling a dispute, a court, after reviewing all the evidence relevant to the application for summary judgment, after examining the evidence, after examining the light most favourable to the non-moving party, „shall determine whether the evidence constitutes sufficient disagreement to require the presentation to a jury, or whether they are sufficiently unilateral for a party to have legal priority”. Id. 251-52, 106 p. Ct. 2505; Boyd v. Ford Motor Co., 948 F.2d 283, 285 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.P. 939, 112 p. Ct.

1481, 117 L. Ed. 2d 624 (1992). Therefore, „the investigation conducted is the threshold investigation to determine whether it is necessary to initiate legal proceedings, in other words, there are real substantive issues that can only be properly resolved by fact, because they can reasonably be resolved for the benefit of one of the parties.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 p. Ct. 2505; Stein v. National City Bank, 942 F.2d 1062, 1064 (6.

Cir.1991). The conclusion of this court is also reflected in the recent Hawaii Case Teamsters, Local 996 v. United Parcel Service, 241 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.2001), which reaches the same conclusion on the basis of the identical national framework agreement between UPS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Union to which local 519 is bound, as well as a similar addendum between the local subsidiary and UPS. . . .

Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.

Aceasta site este sponsorizat de HosTCleaN Gazduire Servere Radio, Web Hosting si Reseller Servere Radio