TEAMSTERS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE NATIONAL GRIEVANCE ...

TEAMSTERS UNITED PARCEL SERVICENATIONAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEEDOCKETFebruary 2 – 5, 20093:00 P.M.SHERATON YANKEE CLIPPER1140 SEABREEZE BOULEVARDFT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33316

CASES CARRIED OVER:N-248-06:N-54-07:N-162-07:N-174-07:N-176-07:N-180-07:N-225-07:Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges Company violated Article 5 claiming thereis no privacy with regard to the locker roomlocation. (REDOCKET)Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Clyde Jackson, Union alleges Companyviolation of Article 3, Section 7, claimingSupervisor Scott performed bargaining unit work12/14/05.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Chester Wass-Wisi, Union allegesCompany violated Article 17, claiming ongoing payshortage. Grievant is being paid hub rate whenon the road, should be paid air driver rate(10/5/06 and 11/16/06).Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of Tom Geagan, Union alleges violationof Article 38, NMUPSA and Articles 7 and 17,NCSA, claiming Company did not adhere to agrievance settlement.Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of Keith Barros, Union alleges Companyviolating Articles 1 and 7, by subcontractingfreight.Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges Company violation of Article 17, claimingthat employees are not being paid for time spentobtaining badge required to enter UPS airoperations.Local 162 v. UPS, Portland, OROn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges Company violated Article 17, claimingthat all time spent obtaining necessary airportidentification is time spent in service of theEmployer. Article 17 obligates the Employer to-2-

pay employees for all time spent in service ofthe Employer.N-230-07:N-232-07:N-33-08:N-71-08:N-78-08:N-79-08:N-80-08:Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of all affected NorCal Locals, Unionalleges violation of Articles 1, 26 and 32,claiming Company is subcontracting UPS MailInnovations work.Local 386 v. UPS, Modesto, CAOn behalf of Robert Arellanez Union allegesCompany violated Article 3, claiming that parttimeand junior men are doing feeder work. Thiswork is full-time package and should be performedby a full-timer.Local 162 v. UPS, Portland, OROn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Articles 1 and 32,claiming that the Company is subcontracting workto the U.S. Postal Service.Local 449 v. UPS, Buffalo, NYOn behalf of Edward Fischer, Union allegesCompany violation of Article 15, claiming thatthe grievant, a Feeder cover driver, is not beingallowed to perform regular duties after returnfrom Military Leave.Local 804 v. UPS, Long Island City, NYOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 32, claiming thatthe Company is subcontracting Porter and Carwashwork everyday on a permanent basis.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 1 and 32, claimingthat the Company outsourced bargaining unit work.Local 322 v. UPS, Richmond, VAOn behalf of John Smith, Union alleges aviolation of Article 36, claiming that theCompany is discriminating against insideemployees by not allowing them to bring in cell-3-

phones while other employees (drivers,management, etc.) are allowed to do so.N-83-08:N-92-08:N-93-08:N-94-08:N-104-08:N-112-08:Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 17,claiming that full-time helpers are reporting todesignated job sites on their own time. Companyshould be paying employees for all travel time toand from building – issues had been settledpreviously.Local 317 v. UPS, Syracuse, NYOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 3,Section 7, claiming Supervisors working ondeliveries (Jan 3-4, 2008).Local 317 v. UPS, Syracuse, NYOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 4, claiming thatthe Company has failed to provide informationrequested on subcontractors. Numerous requestshave been made and information has not beengiven, despite the Union being told that it wouldbe provided as in the past.Local 317 v. UPS, Syracuse, NYOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 32,Section 7, claiming subcontractors brought railloads to the building and as a result, scheduledemployees did not perform normal work andadditional employees lost work opportunity.Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges violation of Article 32, claiming thatthe Company is subcontracting UPS Package work toSCS (RC 3-07-148).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Bruce Bransford, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 22, Section 3, bycreating a 22.3 job from existing Full-timePackage work.-4-

N-350-08:N-371-08:N-372-08:N-378-08:Local 624 v. UPS, Santa Rosa, CAOn behalf of Teri Moore, Union alleges aviolation of Article 7, Section 1, claiming thatthe Company has removed and is performing workthat has twice been awarded to the Union. TheUnion maintains it has a right to this work andseeks its return to bargaining unit employees.Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company is in violation ofArticle 4 and all others that apply, by nothonoring the requests of the Union for relevantand reasonable information/ documents on pendinggrievances.Local 340 v. UPS, South Portland, MEOn behalf of Jonathan Larkin, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Articles 17 and 41, claimingthat the grievant was required to work a 30-monthprogression while contract requirements are toonly serve a 24-month progression.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Matt Zehnder and Marvin Lawson,Union alleges a violation of Article 4, claimingthat Company is not permitting Shop Stewardsreasonable time to investigate, present orprocess grievances.-5-

SOUTHERN REGIONNEW CASES:N-01-09:N-02-09:N-03-09:N-04-09:N-05-09:Local 577 v. UPS, Amarillo, TXOn behalf of Omar Gutierrez, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 41, claiming wageprogression dispute. Grievant makes $16.10 perhour; a newly hired Package Car Driver hiredafter 8/1/08 that has attained seniority receives$17.25 per hour.Local 577 v. UPS, Amarillo, TXOn behalf of Cody Caraway, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 41, claiming wageprogression dispute. Grievant makes $16.10 perhour; a newly hired Package Car Driver hiredafter 8/1/08 that has attained seniority receives$17.25 per hour.Local 769 v. UPS, North Miami, FLOn behalf of Vicente Mena, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 claimingthat Supervisors performing bargaining unit work(June 3-6, June 9-12, and June 24-27, 2008).Local 769 v. UPS, North Miami, FLOn behalf of Jesse Salazar, Union alleges aviolation of Article 17, claiming that theCompany agreed to pay grievance on 5/29/08.After ten (10) days, the grievant filed anadditional grievance asking for penalty pay untilthe initial grievance was satisfied. Grievancewas paid on 8/6/08 leaving six (6) full weekspenalty owed to grievant.Local 79 v. UPS, Tampa, FLOn behalf of Hector Basulto and Jon Lingo, Unionalleges a violation of Article 32. The Companyis subcontracting bargaining unit maintenancework with qualified individuals available toperform the work. (January 2007 forward).-6-

N-06-09:N-07-09:N-08-09:N-09-09:N-10-09:N-11-09:Local 79 v. UPS, Tampa, FLOn behalf of Vincent McKelvey, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 17 and all othersthat apply, claiming grievant’s check was shortand late. Grievant did not receive an agreedupon grievance settlement timely and is entitledto all Article 17’s associated with late payment(May 2008 until shortage received in September2008).Local 79 v. UPS, Tampa, FLOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 22 and all othersthat apply, claiming the Company refuses to bidjob properly. An inside/inside combination jobwas vacated; the Company is refusing to re-bidthe job as it was before the vacancy.Local 79 v. UPS, Tampa, FLOn behalf of Robert Sowell, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Articles 17 and 29. Unionrequests proper payment for travel relating to afuneral, as outlined in Article 29.Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Jon Simpson, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 17, claiming that thegrievant’s payroll was shorted and he was notpaid penalty under Article 17.Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 32,claiming subcontractors are pulling UPS trailersto a storage yard from the Mesquite yard.Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Jon Simpson, Union alleges aviolation of Article 22, claiming that theCompany has refused to post vacated 22.3 fulltimejobs.-7-

EASTERN REGIONNEW CASES:N-12-09:N-13-09:N-14-09:N-15-09:N-16-09:N-17-09:Local 71 v. UPS, Charlotte, NCOn behalf of Danielle Galloway, Union alleges aviolation of Article 22, Section 5, claiming thatthe Company is failing to honor seniority whenfilling permanent vacancies from the preferredjob list. Part-time employees should be allowedto exercise their seniority or the preferred jobselection list – up to and including changingshifts to take a specific position.Local 639 v. UPS, Washington, DCOn behalf of Randcy Tillery, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany continually harasses and discriminatesagainst grievant, by not allowing him to properlyexercise his seniority.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Joyce Kochis, Union alleges aviolation of Article 17, claiming penalty pay forshortage to paycheck Week Ending 8/30/08; tookfive weeks to correct.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Joyce Kochis, Union alleges aviolation of Article 17, claiming penalty pay forshortage to paycheck Week Ending 9/6/08; tookeight weeks to correct.Local 61 v. UPS, Asheville, NCOn behalf of Dwayne Whitener, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 3, Section 7,claiming Supervisors Wade Stallings and HaleyLingerfelt performed hourly work (shuttle toairport) on 4/10/08. Union requests thatgrievant be paid 16 hours at double-time rate ofpay.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 22 by-8-

efusing to maintain Article 22 jobs created inthe Local’s jurisdiction.N-18-09:N-19-09:N-20-09:N-21-09:N-22-09:N-23-09:Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply. Union requests compensation for alltime worked by supervisors as outlined in theContract (6/9/08 and ongoing [462-08 - pilotcase]).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply. Union requests compensation for alltime worked by Supervisors as outlined in theContract (6/11/08 and ongoing [463-08]).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(6/12/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(6/16/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(6/17/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(6/18/08 and ongoing).-9-

N-24-09:N-25-09:N-26-09:N-27-09:N-28-09:N-29-09:N-30-09:Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(6/19/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(6/25/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(6/27/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(6/30/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(7/14/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of Mark O’Neal, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7 and allthat apply, requesting compensation for all timeworked by supervisors as outlined in the Contract(7/18/08 and ongoing).Local 391 v. UPS, Raleigh, NCOn behalf of Jason Gray, Union alleges that theCompany violated Articles 36, 37 and all othersthat apply, claiming grievant was accosted by his-10-

Supervisor on 7/29/08, violating the Company’santi-harassment and workplace violence policies.N-31-09:N-32-09:N-33-09:N-34-09:Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Chris Jaroszynski, Union allegesthat the Company violated Article 7. Employeewas discharged and not allowed to remain on thejob without loss of pay.Local 449 v. UPS, Buffalo, NYOn behalf of Byron Taylor, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 3, Section 7, claimingSupervisors performing bargaining unit work(12/2/08).Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 17, claiming thatafter numerous discussions, the Company continuesto refuse to show on all paychecks personal leavebalances.Local 61 v. UPS, Asheville, NCOn behalf of Graylon Rash, Union alleges aviolation of Articles 17 and 38. The Companydoes not have the right to force cover drivers totake their own vehicles to satellite centers.The Local Union does not have any agreement withthe Company on “Satellite Centers”.-11-

WESTERN REGIONNEW CASES:N-35-09:N-36-09:N-37-09:N-38-09:N-39-09:Local 63 v. UPS, Rialto, CAOn behalf of Flores and Latscha, Union alleges aviolation of Articles 1, 26 and 32. The Companysubcontracted a load from Ontario, CA to Chicago,IL while there were trained Feeder drivers inpackage and sleeper equipment available (1/8/08).Local 63 v. UPS, Rialto, CAOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Articles 1, 26 and 32.The Company subcontracted several loaded trailersfrom the Colton, CA rail yard to theGranada Vista facility in the LA Basin. Therewere brown shirts available that could haveperformed this work (4/7/08).Local 542 v. UPS, San Diego, CAOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 22, Section 3,claiming that the Company is refusing to postpermanently vacated 22.3 positions.Local 162 v. UPS, Portland, OROn behalf of all affected employees, unionalleges a violation of Article 22 and all thatapply, claiming that the Company is reducing thenumber of Article 22.3 full-time inside jobs inthe jurisdiction of Local 162.Local 533 v. UPS, Reno, NVOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 22, claiming thatthe Company should only count Package Carpositions in the six to one ratio.-12-

WESTERN REGION SUPPLEMENTNEW CASES:N-40-09:Local 631 v. UPS, Las Vegas, NVOn behalf of Carolyn Hicks, Union alleges aviolation of Article 42, SWPR, and all othersthat may apply. The Company paid grievantincorrectly, starting 11/15/06 when she completedher two-year progression; asking for all back payand ongoing penalty pay.-13-

NOR-CAL SUPPLEMENTNEW CASES:N-41-09:Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of the Nor Cal Committee, Union allegesa violation of Articles 7, 17, 21 and all othersthat apply, claiming that the Company violatedcontractual rights by reaching an agreement forPart-time and Article 22.3 Car Washers inviolation of the contract.-14-

SAFETY & HEALTH COMMITTEECASES CARRIED OVER:N-08-07:N-09-07:N-239-07:N-248-07:N-269-07:N-46-08:Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges violation of Articles 18 and 38, claimingCompany refuses to comply with contract.Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Jerry Farris, Union allegesviolation of Article 37, claiming Company wantsgrievant to cover up tattoo.Local 728 v. UPS, Atlanta, GAOn behalf of Dan Johnson, Union alleges violationof Articles 17 and 20, claiming that the Companyshould pay 8 hours for grievant having to takeoff work on 10/2/06 in order to meet Federalrequirements.Local 71 v. UPS, Charlotte, NCOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges violation of Articles 17 and 20, claimingthe Company is failing to pay employees for timespent acquiring I.D. badges for the UPS CharlotteAirport Facility.Local 728 v. UPS, Atlanta, GAOn behalf of Max Norton, Union alleges violationof Articles 20, Section 5 and Article 17,claiming that Company required grievant to getanother identification badge and to be fingerprintedto enter Atlanta Gateway Terminal atairport.Local 278 v. UPS, San Francisco, CAOn behalf of Gregory Ismarin, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 20, Section 4 andArticle 16, Section 2, claiming that grievant wasdischarged two (2) months after his release.Grievant is physically fit to perform inside jobsand should be allowed to do so.-15-

N-56-08:N-57-08:N-119-08:N-120-08:N-122-08:N-123-08:N-125-08:Local 340 v. UPS, Portland, MEOn behalf of Timothy Spellman, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Articles 14, 34, 36, 37, 47and all others that apply, by denying grievantlong-term disability, as required by theCollective Bargaining Agreement.Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Articles 16 and 35,claiming that the Company is refusing to providepre-care and after-care and return to workdocumentation.Local 804 v. UPS, Long Island City, NYOn behalf of Felix Polanco, Union alleges aviolation of Article 18, claiming that theCompany denied grievant’s request for a vehiclewith a lower step to prevent another back injury.Local 174 v. UPS, Tukwila, WAOn behalf of Redmond Safety Committee, Unionalleges that the Company is in violation ofArticle 18 and all other applicable language, bynot resolving safety and health concerns broughtto the attention of management by the SafetyCommittee (2008-01-168).Local 174 v. UPS, Tukwila, WAOn behalf of Redmond Safety Committee, Unionalleges that the Company is in violation ofArticle 18 and all other applicable language, forcreating an unsafe working condition by notextending platforms to aid workers in breakingjams.Local 174 v. UPS, Tukwila, WAOn behalf of Redmond Safety Committee, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 18 andall other applicable language, by not addressingsafety concerns of the Redmond TwilightCommittee.Local 988 v. UPS, Houston, TXOn behalf of Monte Bridgewater, Union allegesthat the Company violated Article 35, claimingthat the grievant was not allowed to work when-16-

others were allowed to work when Union didn’tsign off on SAP Agreement because certain itemswere blacked out.N-129-08:N-383-08:N-396-08:N-397-08:N-398-08:N-399-08:N-400-08:Local 512 v. UPS, Jacksonville, FLOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 18, claiming thatthe Company has imposed an unfair, unsafe andarbitrary work rule regarding pedestrian passagethrough a part of the yard known as the“horseshoe.”Local 639 v. UPS, Washington, DCOn behalf of Antjuan Collins, Union alleges aviolation of Article 20 and all others thatapply, claiming that the Company forced grievantto miss work to take exam for PFB.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Wilbur Murray, Union alleges aviolation of Article 14, claiming that theCompany refused to promptly address grievant’sinjury claim and refused grievant’s request formedical attention.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Gregory DiPalma, Union alleges aviolation of Article 14, claiming that theCompany refused to promptly address grievant’sinjury claim and refused grievant’s request formedical attention.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Sam Mangiapane, Union alleges thatCompany violated Article 14 by having a Companyrepresentative accompany the injured worker intothe examining room without consent.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Robert Mitchell, Union alleges thatCompany violated Article 14 by having a Companyrepresentative accompany the injured worker intothe examining room without consent.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that Company violated Article 18 and all-17-

others that apply by having the Safety Committeeaffix safety magnets to Package Cars.N-77-08N-404-08:N-405-08:N-407-08:Local 61 v. UPS, Asheville, NCOn behalf of Darrell Thomas, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 16, Section 3 andArticle 2, Section 2. Grievant has a suspendedlicense for speeding and requested to displace aFull-Time 22.3 employee per Article 16, Section3(2). (REDOCKETED)Local 317 v. UPS, Syracuse, NYOn behalf of John Gentry, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 35, claiming thatgrievant is being called prior to work for arandom alcohol test and not being paid for time.Employee should be paid for time en-route to workto take random alcohol test.Local 480 v. UPS, Nashville, TNOn behalf of Jeffrey Daniels, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 20, 37, 17 and allothers that apply. Does the Company have theright to dictate exactly which authorizedphysicians may/may not perform a valid DOT exam,despite the fact that the grievant paid for suchexam? Does the Company have the right to deny anemployee’s right to operate a package car,despite the fact he had and has a valid DOTexaminer’s certificate and has provided theCompany with written notification from a medicalexpert in their field which fully released him todrive? Does the Company have the right tocompletely disregard the DOT regulations asclearly spelled out in the FMCSA?Local 63 c. UPS, Rialto, CAOn behalf of Venna O’Farrell, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 35, claiming thatgrievant was denied medical benefits while on alegitimate medical leave of absence.-18-

NEW CASES:N-42-09:N-43-09:N-44-09:N-45-09:N-46-09:N-47-09:Local 901 v. UPS, San Juan, PROn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 34,Section 1, claiming the Employer has failed tomake contributions to the Health and WelfarePlan.Local 804 v. UPS, Long Island City, NYOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 18, Section 20.4,and requests that the Company return the meetingto its original, agreed upon time and date.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Glen Ramos, Union alleges aviolation of Article 20, Section 2.Contractually, the Company is required to providea return to work examination with the CompanyDoctor within three (3) days after employeeprovides a return to work slip from theemployee’s doctor. The Company did not providean appointment until 14 days later causinggrievant to miss 10 days of work.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Jim McIntyre, Union alleges aviolation of Article 14, Section 3, claiming theCompany has not given grievant an ADAaccommodation in accordance with the CBA and allapplicable laws.Local 449 v. UPS, Buffalo, NYOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 35,Section 3.12, claiming that written verificationwas not received by employee in a timely mannerfrom the SAP to extend testing. The employee hasmet the requirements of follow-up testing in the12-month period.Local 769 v. UPS, North Miami, FLOn behalf of Steve Fekete, Union alleges aviolation of Article 18, claiming unsafe airquality on the automotive side of theFt. Lauderdale Building. The Company is closing-19-

ay doors next to the automotive when packagecars leave the buildingN-48-09:N-49-09:N-50-09:N-51-09:N-52-09:N-53-09:Local 769 v. UPS, North Miami, FLOn behalf of Steve Fekete, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 18, claiming unsafe airquality on the automotive side of theFt. Lauderdale building. The Company is closingbay doors when package cars leave the building.Next to the automotive is the P.E. workingstation with the work that is to be performed byP.E. personnel. The airborne particles arecreating an unsafe working condition along withlimited air flow.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Anthony Poli, union alleges that theCompany violated Article 18, by putting grievantin an unsafe and dangerous work area.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, unionalleges a violation of Article 18. The Companyis putting employees in unsafe working conditionsand work area by adding onto MBC unit (12/12/08).Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, unionalleges a violation of Article 18. The Companyis putting employees in unsafe working conditionsand work area by adding onto MBC unit (12/15/08).Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of Blair Levy, Union alleges aviolation of Articles 18, 44 and all others thatapply, claiming the Company allowing employees towork on moving belts. Company is violatingAgreement to terminate the use of the belt.Local 79 v. UPS, Tampa, FLOn behalf of Mike Kato, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 14 and all others thatapply, claiming grievant was denied work inclassification. The Company is sending full-timebargaining unit employees home at their eight (8)hours and supplementing the work with temporaryalternate work when there is no TAW agreement on-20-

file with the IBT, Health and Safety Committee orLocal Union (December 2007 and ongoing).N-54-09:N-55-09:N-56-09:Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Lori Bauer, Union alleges theCompany violated Articles 16, 17 and all othersthat apply. The Company did not pay Holidays duewhile grievant was out on FMLA.Local 533 v. UPS, Reno, NVOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 18, claiming theCompany is refusing to put heat in clericalareas.Local 533 v. UPS, Reno, NVOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 20, claiming theCompany is demanding medical notes; employeeshave a right to return to work.-21-

PREMIUM SERVICES COMMITTEECARRIED OVER CASES:N-141-08:N-142-08:N-145-08:N-154-08:N-155-08:N-408-08:Local 251 v. UPS, East Providence, RIOn behalf of Charles Morelle and George Poncin,Union alleges that the Company violated Article43. For the week ending 2/16/08, Sleeper TeamNE02904 was assigned the Vermont Teddy Bear Runon their regularly scheduled days off and paidstraight time for the work beginning Sunday,February 10 through Tuesday morning, February 12.Local 251 v. UPS, East Providence, RIOn behalf of Gerald Hackett and Robert Bubolz,Union alleges that the Company violated Article43, by putting grievants off duty for 10 hoursand docking their pay 10 hours.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 43, claiming thatthe Company is categorizing Feeder work andpaying different rates of pay. Drivers should bepaid the applicable rate of pay regardless of thetype of Feeder work being performed.Local 71 v. UPS, Charlotte, NCOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges violation of Article 43, claiming thatthe Company refuses to abide by Article 43Guidelines.Local 396 v. UPS, Covina, CAOn behalf of Dorion Takeshita, Union alleges aviolation of Article 17, 43 and all others thatapply, claiming that Company failed to paycorrect pay method on Sleeper Team diversion.Make whole for any and all lost wages; penaltiesto apply.Local 170 v. UPS, Worcester, MAOn behalf of all Mileage Drivers, Union allegesthat the Company is in violation of Article 43and all others that apply, claiming that Mileage-22-

Drivers should be paid according to pastpractice.N-410-08:N-144-08N-413-08:N-423-08:N-519-08:N-520-08:Local 455 v. UPS, Denver, COOn behalf of Steve Easdon, Union alleges aviolation of Article 43 and Article 5 CRS,claiming that the Company issued grievant’sSleeper Team a new tractor and will not turn itup to 75 mph.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 43, claiming thatthe Company substituted the approved loads frommileage turn jobs with unapproved loads(REDOCKETED).Local 676 v. UPS, Collingswood, NJOn behalf of Dave Cutlee, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, claiming that themeal period is being used on mileage runs toavoid paying delay time. Meal period is notaddressed in the 43 Committee Rules only LocalSupplement.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Ken Gruelich, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, Section 1, claimingSleeper teams performing work normally done byhourly drivers.Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Ken Gruelich, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, Section 1, claimingSleeper teams performing work normally done byhourly drivers (8/22/07).Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of Ken Gruelich, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, Section 1, claimingthat Sleeper teams are performing work normallydone by hourly drivers (1/19/08).NEW CASES:N-57-09:Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of all senior affected employees, Union-23-

alleges that the Company violated Article 43, bynot having Local 70 do the Feeder/Sleeper teamrun in question.N-58-09:N-59-09:N-60-09:N-61-09:N-62-09:Local 638 v. UPS, Minneapolis, MNOn behalf of Kent Lanners, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, Section 2(12).Grievant’s bid position is running a mileage jobto Stevens Point, WI. He has received straighttimewages for the time spent waiting for hisload at the beginning of his day, but believes heshould have been paid at the applicable hourlyfeeder one and one-half rate of pay.Local 638 v. UPS, Minneapolis, MNOn behalf of Brad Larson, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, Section 2(12). Thenew language for this Section states “hourly workperformed at the beginning or end of mileage runshall be paid at the applicable hourly feederrate of pay or the applicable premium rate of payin the drivers’ Supplemental Agreement.”Grievant was informed that 5/5/08 mileage driverwill be straight time for some hourly workperformed at the beginning of a mileage run.Local 89 v. UPS, Louisville, KYOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company is in violation ofArticle 43, by not following the correct practiceof preassembling the units (including thetractor) on mileage runs.Local 89 v. UPS, Louisville, KYOn behalf of Anthony Cook, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, claiming grievantshort four (4) hours of turn pay in Phoenix, AZ.Local 89 v. UPS, Louisville, KYOn behalf of Brian Wiedewitsch, Union allegesthat the Company violated Article 43, claimingPaul Elder told grievant that turn pay was paidoff of LMA schedule. Lenexa leg 8/7/08 arrived23:47 Kansas time and left at 2:47 Kansas time.We were paid .66 total turn pay: 11 minutes forleg two, plus 12 minutes for leg three and 101-24-

minutes for leg five (leg two 8/6/08; leg three8/6/08; and leg 5 8/7/08).N-63-09:N-64-09:N-65-09:N-138-08:N-139-08:Local 89 v. UPS, Louisville, KYOn behalf of Chris White, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, claiming Paul Eldertold grievant that turn pay was paid off of LMA.Grievant departed Louisville, KY after scheduledue to late sort. On 8/7/08 we arrived 23:47Lenexa, KS and left at 2:47. We were paid .66total turn pay: 11 minutes for leg two, 14minutes for leg three and 101 minutes for leg 5,for a total of 2 hours and 7 minutes.Local 413 v. UPS, Columbus, OHOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company is in violation ofArticle 43 and the 43 Committee ruling dated11/3/08. On 11/11/08 the Company took theposition that they will run the runs in questionby mileage in defiance of Article 43 and the 43Committee decision. The Union is requesting thatthe Company comply with the 43 Committee decisionand make whole all drivers that are affected bythe Company’s actions.Local 952 v. UPS, Orange, CAOn behalf of Musselman, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 43, claiming drivers arenot being paid for excessive delays at theChicago CSX Rail Yard. Turn around point waschanged to the rail yard. The team must thendrive further to the UPS facility to fuel. Timespent in delays at rail yards should becompensated for at the hourly rate of pay.Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of A. Stepp and L. Martin, Unionalleges that the Company violated Articles 17,40, 43 and all applicable, by not paying TeamDrivers time-and-one-half for working onNovember 23, 2007 holiday (REDOCKETED).Local 391 v. UPS, Greensboro, NCOn behalf of J. McDowell and D. Wicker, Unionalleges that the Company violated Articles 17,40, 43 and all applicable, by not paying Team-25-

Drivers time-and-one-half for working onNovember 23, 2007 holiday (REDOCKETED).N-66-09:N-67-09:N-68-09:N-69-09:N-70-09:Local 512 v. UPS, Jacksonville, FLOn behalf of Barry Timmons, Union alleges aviolation of Article 43, claiming that theCompany has arbitrarily changed the way SleeperTeams’ delay time is paid at the team’s furthestpoint. The two (2) hour unpaid delay time at aSleeper Team’s furthest point starts uponarrival. Contractual language and 10 years’ pastpractice supports this position.Local 988 v. UPS, Houston, TXOn behalf of Paul Cleboski, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 43, claiminggrievant was not paid time-and-one-half on delaytime. Does grievant have two start and finishtimes of two furthest points? If he does, memberrequests back pay and penalty pay (8/22/08).Local 988 v. UPS, Houston, TXOn behalf of Paul Cleboski, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 43. Grievant wasinformed by the Company that his Sleeper run hasone start and one finish time yet the Company hasdeducted four (4) hours of pay for two furthestpoints. Grievant is asking to be paid for allback deductions and future deductions at theRockford, IL location (9/3/08).Local 177 v. UPS, Hillside, NJOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article, Section 4,claiming the Company is violating jurisdictionalrules.Local 396 v. UPS, Covina, CAOn behalf of Zack Lopez and Mario Tapia, Unionalleges that the Company violated Articles 43, 17and the Article 43 Guidelines, claiming SleeperTeam not being paid hourly pay for commuting nine(9) miles to fuel off trace (10/28/08 andongoing).-26-

N-71-09:N-72-09:N-73-09:N-74-09:N-75-09:N-76-09:Local 396 v. UPS, Covina, CAOn behalf of Tracy McAlister and John Wright,Union alleges that the Company violated Articles43 and 17, claiming Sleeper Team not being paidhourly pay for commuting nine (9) miles to fuelstop off trace (9/25/08 and ongoing).Local 396 v. UPS, Covina, CAOn behalf of Jack Northover and James Close,Union alleges a violation of Articles 43 and 17,claiming that the Company refused to pay for workperformed at furthest destination (June 2008 andongoing).Local 396 v. UPS, Covina, CAOn behalf of David Henningfield and Renee Perez,Union alleges a violation of Articles 43 and 17,claiming that the Company refused to pay for workperformed at furthest destination (September 23-26, 2008).Local 396 v. UPS, Covina, CAOn behalf of Simon Contero, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Articles 43 and 17.Grievant was directed to perform Package work ona Monday, then dispatched on a Sleeper RunTuesday through Thursday and was not paid theappropriate premium rate for Monday (Week Ending11/1/08).Local 396 v. UPS, Covina, CAOn behalf of Bonita Amoroso, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Articles 43 and 17.Grievant was directed to perform Package work ona Monday and Tuesday, then dispatched on aSleeper Run Wednesday through Friday and was notpaid the appropriate premium rate for Monday andTuesday(Week Ending 11/14/08).Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Ralph Compton, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 43. The two-hourdelay at furthest point on Sleepers are not beingpaid until the two (2) hours after the scheduledarrival. The Company has unilaterally changedthe way delays are paid to Sleepers (7/26/08 andongoing).-27-

N-77-09:Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Raymond Zachary, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 43. The Company isrefusing to pay a delay cause by highway closure(Week Ending 8/22/08).-28-

9.5CASES CARRIED OVER:N-198-08:N-199-08:N-200-08:N-201-08:N-202-08:N-203-08:Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Brian Robinson, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claiming thatgrievant has a lower level panel decision is hisfavor, is to be paid appropriate penalty andCompany is to cease and desist.Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Chris Cavanagh, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claiming thatgrievant has a lower level panel decision is hisfavor, is to be paid appropriate penalty andCompany is to cease and desist.Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Eric Oishi, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty, and Company is tocease and desist.Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Jesse Perez, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty and Company is tocease and desist.Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Sal Ramirez, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty and Company is tocease and desist.Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Manual Ramos, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty and Company is tocease and desist.-29-

N-204-08:N-205-08:N-206-08:N-207-08:N-208-08:N-209-08:N-214-08:Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Art Silvas, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty and Company is tocease and desist.Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Mike Montes, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty and Company is tocease and desist (Case 02-08-192).Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Mike Montes, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty and Company is tocease and desist (Case 02-08-198).Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Harold Hatley, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claiminggrievant has a lower level panel decision is hisfavor, is to be paid appropriate penalty andCompany is to cease and desist.Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Don Taff, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty and Company is tocease and desist.Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of Jeff Welbaum, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievanthas a lower level panel decision is his favor, isto be paid appropriate penalty and Company is tocease and desist.Local 174 v. UPS, Tukwila, WAOn behalf of Kenny Dings, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, Section 1(c), bycausing grievant to work in excess of 9.5 hours.-30-

N-222-08:N-223-08:N-224-08:N-333-08:N-424-08:N-427-08:N-428-08:Local 294 v. UPS, Albany, NYOn behalf of John Creech, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming that thegrievant has continually worked over 9.5(3/10/08, 3/11/08, 3/12/08 and 3/13/08).Local 294 v. UPS, Albany, NYOn behalf of Mike Marro, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming that thegrievant has continually worked over 9.5(3/24/08, 3/25/08, 3/26/08 and 3/27/08).Local 294 v. UPS, Albany, NYOn behalf of Thomas Racanna, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claiming thatthe grievant has continually worked over 9.5(3/24/08, 3/25/08, 3/26/08 and 3/27/08).Local 186 v. UPS, Ventura, CAOn behalf of Yvette Sabol, Union alleges that theCompany is in violation of Article 37, claimingthat the grievant is on the “Opt In” list and hasa Labor signed off 9.5 grievance. The Companyhas been made aware of this ongoing violation andhas not followed the Agreement to reducegrievant’s day (Weeks Ending 1/5/08, 3/1/08,3/29/08, 5/3/08, 5/10/08 and 5/17/08).Local 381 v. UPS, Santa Maria, CAOn behalf of David Andrade, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claiming thatthe employee worked 9.63, 9.92, 9.57, 11.25 and10.78 the week of 3/10/08. Requesting that theCompany comply with Article 37; pay employeeappropriate penalty; adjust route, and cease anddesist.Local 150 v. UPS, Sacramento, CAOn behalf of Thomas Murphy, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, Section 1(c),claiming excessive overtime, March 3-7, 2008.Local 150 v. UPS, Sacramento, CAOn behalf of Thomas Murphy, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, Section 1(c),claiming excessive overtime, March 10-12, 2008.-31-

N-429-08:N-430-08:N-431-08:N-432-08:N-460-08:N-461-08:N-492-08:N-518-08:Local 150 v. UPS, Sacramento, CAOn behalf of Kevin Settjie, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, Section 1(c),claiming excessive overtime, March 4, 5 and 6,2008.Local 150 v. UPS, Sacramento, CAOn behalf of Dianne Meyers, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, Section 1(c),claiming excessive overtime, March 3-6, 2008.Local 150 v. UPS, Sacramento, CAOn behalf of Joshua Gastelum, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, Section 1(c),claiming excessive overtime, February 26, 28 and29, 2008.Local 150 v. UPS, Sacramento, CAOn behalf of Joshua Gastelum, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, Section 1(c),claiming excessive overtime, March 3-7, 2008.Local 2 v. UPS, Great Falls, MTOn behalf of Matt Hoge, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievant’shours continually over 9.5 and not being paid thecontractual penalty (Jan 2008 and ongoing –Grievance #1807).Local 2 v. UPS, Great Falls, MTOn behalf of Matt Hoge, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming grievant’shours continually over 9.5 and not being paid thecontractual penalty (Jan 2008 and ongoing –Grievance #1809).Local 317 v. UPS, Syracuse, NYOn behalf of Tony Timbello, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claiming thatthe driver’s route has been adjusted and he alsohas been paid in the past for a 9.5 grievance.The Company does not want to pay 9.5 grievanceson this employee because they claim high mileage.Local 431 v. UPS, Fresno, CAOn behalf of Curt Leake, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that despite a-32-

National Decision to reduce grievant from workingover 9.5 hours, Company continuously dispatcheshim with over a 9.5 day.NEW CASESN-78-09:N-79-09:N-80-09:N-81-09:N-82-09:Local 439 v. UPS, Stockton, CAOn behalf of Steve Martinelli, Union alleges thatthe Company is in violation of Article 37,claiming grievant worked in excess of 9.5 hours aday more than three days a week since filing agrievance on 9/23/08.Local 391 v. UPS, Raleigh, NCOn behalf of Vince Talley, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany did not reduce grievant’s work load.Grievant has requested that the Company adjusthis work load on many occasions but they havefailed to do so. He is requesting that he bepaid triple time for the violation and his workload adjusted (March 17, 19 and 20, 2008 [311-08]).Local 391 v. UPS, Raleigh, NCOn behalf of Vince Talley, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany did not reduce grievant’s work load.Grievant has requested that the Company adjusthis work load on many occasions but they havefailed to do so. He is requesting that he bepaid triple time for the violation and his workload adjusted (March 31, April 1, 2 and 3, 2008[312-08]).Local 509 v. UPS, Taylors, SCOn behalf of Michael Dotson, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, and requests penalty pay forviolations on February 19, 20 and 21, 2008 (357-08).Local 804 v. UPS, Long Island City, NYOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 37, claiming thatthe Company will not post Opt-In/Opt-Out list asper Article 37.-33-

N-83-09:N-84-09:N-85-09:N-86-09:N-87-09:N-88-09:Local 63 v. UPS, Rialto, CAOn behalf of Elliott Esparza, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany caused grievant to work over 9.5 duringthe weeks in question, in violation of thecollective bargaining agreement (Weeks Ending8/2/08, 8/16/08, 8/23/08 and 8/30/08).Local 63 v. UPS, Rialto, CAOn behalf of Joe Sepulveda, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany caused grievant to work over 9.5 duringthe weeks in question, in violation of thecollective bargaining agreement (Weeks Ending7/19/08, 8/9/08, and 8/23/08).Local 63 v. UPS, Rialto, CAOn behalf of Kyle Kilgore, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany caused grievant to work over 9.5 duringthe weeks in question, in violation of thecollective bargaining agreement (Week Ending8/9/08).Local 63 v. UPS, Rialto, CAOn behalf of Kevin Knox, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming thatgrievant is an unassigned utility driver who hadopted in on the 9.5 list. He was covering adriver who had also opted in for the entire week.Union requests appropriate penalty for theviolation (Week Ending 7/12/08).Local 509 v. UPS, Taylors, SCOn behalf of Michael Dotson, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, and request penalty pay under Article17 (5/16/08 [374-08]).Local 509 v. UPS, Taylors, SCOn behalf of Michael Dotson, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, and request penalty pay under Article17 (May 20-22, 2008 [375-08]).-34-

N-89-09:N-90-09:N-91-09:N-439-08:N-92-09:N-93-09:Local 509 v. UPS, Taylors, SCOn behalf of Michael Dotson, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, and request penalty pay under Article17 (4/24/08 [447-08]).Local 509 v. UPS, Taylors, SCOn behalf of Richard Thomas, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, filing for eight-hour request andappropriate pay under Article 37.Local 391 v. UPS, Raleigh, NCOn behalf of Vince Talley, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany did not reduce grievant’s work load.Grievant has requested that the Company adjusthis work load on many occasions but they havefailed to do so. He requests triple time pay forthe violation and that his work load be adjusted(June 16-19, 2008 [422-08]).Local 483 v. UPS, Boise, IDOn behalf of Earl Peck, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming excessiveovertime (May 10, 17 and 24, 2008; June 7, 14, 21and 28, 2008 and July 5 and 12, 2008[REDOCKETED]).Local 769 v. UPS, North Miami, FLOn behalf of Jonathan Davila, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claiminggrievant was forced to work over 9.5 hours.Grievant is on Opt-In list, yet forced to workover 9.5 hours per day more than two (2) days ina work week.Local 162 v. UPS, Portland, OROn behalf of Sean Stewart, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37. Grievant is a bidpackage Driver on a route primarily assigned tobid Package Driver Pat Henry when Pat is notworking as a back up Feeder Driver. Grievantsigned the Opt-In list and Pat did not. Grievantrequests clarification as to whether or not he iscovered by the 9.5 provisions when running thisjointly held bid route. If he is covered, he-35-

equests to work under 9.5. If he is notcovered, then Local 162 requests that future bidsunder the provisions of WRSA 6.2 and JC37 2.1(f)include a notation on the bid as to whether ornot the back up Feeder Driver primarily assignedto the bid route is on the 9.5 Opt-In list.N-94-09:N-95-09:N-96-09:N-97-09:N-98-09:N-99-09:Local 991 v. UPS, Mobile, ALOn behalf of Mark Coskrey, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming the Companyworked the grievant three (3) days of over 9.5hours in a work week (July 7-12, 2008).Local 991 v. UPS, Mobile, ALOn behalf of Ryan Brown, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming the Companyworked the grievant three (3) days of over 9.5hours in a work week (8/9/08).Local 991 v. UPS, Mobile, ALOn behalf of Greg Allen, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming the Companyworked the grievant three (3) days of over 9.5hours in a work week (8/2/08).Local 991 v. UPS, Mobile, ALOn behalf of Doug McDaniel, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, by working thegrievant over 8 hours. The company failed tocomply with the grievant’s 8 hour request forwork.Local 991 v. UPS, Mobile, ALOn behalf of David Grantham, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany worked grievant over 9.5 hours three (3)days in a work week (8/30/08).Local 278 v. UPS, San Francisco, CAOn behalf of Jose Lopez, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, by continuallyworking grievant more than 9.5 hours per daythree (3) days or more a week (Week Ending4/5/08).-36-

N-100-09:N-101-09:N-102-09:N-103-09:N-104-09:N-105-09:Local 278 v. UPS, San Francisco, CAOn behalf of Charles Lee, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, by continuallyworking grievant more than 9.5 hours per daythree (3) days or more a week, Weeks Ending4/12/08, 4/26/08, 5/3/08, 5/10/08, 5/31/08 and6/7/08).Local 278 v. UPS, San Francisco, CAOn behalf of Marlon Perez, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, by continuallyworking grievant more than 9.5 hours per daythree (3) days or more a week, Weeks Ending8/23/08, 8/30/08 and 9/6/08).Local 278 v. UPS, San Francisco, CAOn behalf of Carlos Pinto, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, by continuallyworking grievant more than 9.5 hours per daythree (3) days or more a week, Weeks Ending4/19/08, 5/24/08 and 5/31/08).Local 278 v. UPS, San Francisco, CAOn behalf of Sherrod Thomas, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, by continuallyworking grievant more than 9.5 hours per daythree (3) days or more a week, Weeks Ending5/10/08, 5/17/08, 5/31/08, 6/7/08 and 6/14/08).Local 891 v. UPS, Jackson, MIOn behalf of Jason Pernell, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37. Grievant signedthe June 2008 Opt-In list per Article 37. TheCompany required him to work over 9.5 hours three(3) days, week ending 6/27/08. The Company willnot agree to reduce overtime and will not paytriple time due, even after a previous Nationaldecision was rendered in October 2008 for the“Company to Comply” on another 9.5 grievancefiled by Brother Pernell for excessive overtime(June 2, 4, 5 and 6) which was deadlocked to theNational 9.5 Committee in August 2008.Local 891 v. UPS, Jackson, MIOn behalf of John Maddox, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming excessiveovertime. Grievant’s name is on the June 2008-37-

Opt-In. He has filed seven (7) previousgrievances in 2008 for excessive overtime. Thefirst was settled “Company will Comply.” Thelast six (6) grievant was paid time-and-one-halfrate for all over 9.5 hours in those excessiveovertime weeks. The last was settled 7/16/08.Brother Maddox and the Union seek the sameresolution to this grievance and ask that theexcessive overtime be reduced by adjusting hisload.N-106-09:N-426-08:N-485-08:N-107-09:Local 991 v. UPS, Mobile, ALOn behalf of Mark Coskrey, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany worked grievant three (3) days of over9.5 hours in a work week (July 7-12, 2008).Local 516 v. UPS, Muskogee, OKOn behalf of Willard Pearson, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claimingexcessive overtime. Grievant signed the June2008 Opt-In list per Article 37. Companyrequired him to work over 9.5 hours three (3)days in one week. Company will not pay tripletime due and agree to reduce overtime(REDOCKETED).Local 516 v. UPS, Muskogee, OKOn behalf of Ronald Ferguson, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37, claimingexcessive overtime. Grievant signed the June2008 Opt-In list per Article 37. Companyrequired him to work over 9.5 hours three (3)days in one week. Company will not pay tripletime due and agree to reduce overtime(REDOCKETED).Local 891 v. UPS, Jackson, MIOn behalf of John Maddox, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming excessiveovertime. Grievant’s name is on the June 2008“Opt-In” list. He has filed seven (7) previousgrievances in 2008 for excessive overtime. Thefirst was settled “Company will comply.” Thelast six (6), grievant was paid time-and–one-halfrate for all over 9.5 hours in those excessive-38-

overtime weeks. The last was settled 7/16/08.Grievant and the Union seek the same resolutionto this grievance and ask that the excessiveovertime be reduced by adjusting his load(9/4/08).N-108-09:N-109-09:N-110-09:Local 891 v. UPS, Jackson, MIOn behalf of John Maddox, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming excessiveovertime. Grievant’s name is on the June 2008“Opt-In” list. He has filed seven (7) previousgrievances in 2008 for excessive overtime. Thefirst was settled “Company will comply.” Thelast six (6), grievant was paid time-and–one-halfrate for all over 9.5 hours in those excessiveovertime weeks. The last was settled 7/16/08.Grievant and the Union seek the same resolutionto this grievance and ask that the excessiveovertime be reduced by adjusting his load(9/26/08).Local 891 v. UPS, Jackson, MIOn behalf of John Maddox, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming excessiveovertime. Grievant’s name is on the June 2008“Opt-In” list. He has filed seven (7) previousgrievances in 2008 for excessive overtime. Thefirst was settled “Company will comply.” Thelast six (6), grievant was paid time-and–one-halfrate for all over 9.5 hours in those excessiveovertime weeks. The last was settled 7/16/08.Grievant and the Union seek the same resolutionto this grievance and ask that the excessiveovertime be reduced by adjusting his load (WeekEnding 10/4/08).Local 891 v. UPS, Jackson, MIOn behalf of Chris Cole, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37, claiming excessiveovertime. Grievant’s name is on the June 2008“Opt-In” list. He has filed for the third timean excessive overtime grievance. Grievances oneand two were settled as follows: “Company isnotified of 9.5 Issue”, settlement date 6/9/08.Grievance two: “Company will comply with theContract” settlement date 7/10/08. The Grievant-39-

and the Union request payment of all hours over9.5, Week Ending 7/26/08 at time-and-one-halfrate to resolve this third grievance (7/26/08).N-111-09:N-112-09:N-113-09:N-114-09:N-115-09:N-116-09:N-117-09:Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Stephen Hill, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 by forcing grievantto work excessive overtime (8/13/08). Unionrequests triple-time pay for all hours over 9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Austin Frazee, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 by forcinggrievant to work excessive overtime (7/23/08).Union requests triple-time pay for all hours over9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Steve McCallister, Union allegesthat the Company violated Article 37 by forcinggrievant to work excessive overtime (8/15/08).Union requests triple-time pay for all hours over9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Chris Berry, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 by forcing grievantto work excessive overtime (8/6/08). Unionrequests triple-time pay for all hours over 9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Reggie Thomas, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 by forcinggrievant to work excessive overtime (5/23/08).Union requests triple-time pay for all hours over9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Autumn Stone, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 by forcing grievantto work excessive overtime (8/21/08). Unionrequests triple-time pay for all hours over 9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Tim Sperrill, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 by forcing grievant-40-

to work excessive overtime (8/29/08). Unionrequests triple-time pay for all hours over 9.5.N-118-09:N-119-09:N-120-09:N-121-09:N-122-09:N-226-08:N-123-09:Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Andrew Thurman, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 by forcinggrievant to work excessive overtime (8/1/08).Union requests triple-time pay for all hours over9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Tracy Griggs, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 by forcing grievantto work excessive overtime (8/20/08). Unionrequests triple-time pay for all hours over 9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Dennis Pack, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 by forcing grievantto work excessive overtime (7/10/08). Unionrequests triple-time pay for all hours over 9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Larry Goodner, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 by forcinggrievant to work excessive overtime (8/6/08).Union requests triple-time pay for all hours over9.5.Local 373 v. UPS, Fort Smith, AROn behalf of Mike Eddings, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 by forcing grievantto work excessive overtime (9/4/08). Unionrequests triple-time pay for all hours over 9.5.Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 37, Section 1(c),claiming that UPS is violating contractual rightsby violating the 9.5 rights of employees.Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Sean Davis, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-362]).-41-

N-124-09:N-125-09:N-126-09:N-127-09:N-128-09:N-129-09:N-130-09:N-131-09:Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Sean Davis, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-363]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Sean Davis, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-364]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Austin Merritt, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (9/16/08 [2008-09-365]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Austin Merritt, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (9/16/08 [2008-09-366]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Kyle Harrison, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (9/16/08 [2008-09-367]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Kyle Harrison, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (9/16/08 [2008-09-368]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Matt Kaylor, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-371]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Matt Kaylor, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-372]).-42-

N-132-09:N-133-09:N-134-09:N-135-09:N-136-09:N-137-09:N-138-09:N-139-09:Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Jerry Baugh, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-373]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Jeff Emerson, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-374]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Justin Gandy, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-375]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of David Chambliss, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (9/16/08 [2008-09-376]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Garlan Wilkins, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (9/16/08 [2008-09-377]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Paul Conner, Union alleges that theCompany violated Article 37 and all others thatapply, by forcing employees to work excessiveovertime (9/16/08 [2008-09-378]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Justin Bennett, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (9/16/08 [2008-09-379]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Brant Simpson, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (8/12/08 [2008-06-446]).-43-

N-140-09:N-141-09:N-142-09:N-143-09:N-144-09:N-145-09:N-146-09:Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Christopher Beard, Union allegesthat the Company violated Article 37 and allothers that apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (8/12/08 [2008-06-447]).Local 385 v. UPS, Orlando, FLOn behalf of Robbie Monroe, Union alleges thatthe Company violated Article 37 and all othersthat apply, by forcing employees to workexcessive overtime (8/12/08 [2008-06-448]).Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Jesse Bridges, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany is refusing to comply with the over 9.5language as outlined in Article 37 of the CBA(Week Ending 6/7/08).Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Jaime Benavides, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany is not in compliance with the 9.5language as outlined in the CBA (Week Ending4/26/08).Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Cortez Bond, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany is refusing to comply with the over 9.5language as negotiated in the current CBA (WeekEnding 6/7/08).Local 767 v. UPS, Forest Hill, TXOn behalf of Gary Howell, Union alleges aviolation of Article 37, claiming that theCompany is refusing to comply with the over 9.5language as negotiated in the current CBA (WeeksEnding July 12 and 19, 2008).Local 533 v. UPS, Reno, NVOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 37,claiming Division Manager refuses to pay over 9.5grievances.-44-

CSIN-147-09:N-148-09:N-149-09:N-150-09:N-151-09:Local 340 v. UPS, South Portland, MEOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Articles 1, 17, 22, 41,Supplemental Articles 2 and 5, and AddendumArticle 34. Company violated the Agreement whenit arbitrarily reduced the pay of Kevin Houde andDavid Garland and placed them into a wageprogression (10/15/08).Local 769 v. UPS, North Miami, FLOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges that the Company violated Article 41 byapplying Article 41, Section 2(c) to full-timeemployees hired after 8/1/08. Union requeststhat all affected employees be made whole for alllosses.Local 295 v. UPS, Valley Stream, NYOn behalf of Ronald Catti, Union alleges that theCompany violated Articles 3, 6 and all othersthat apply, claiming dock work is being performedby non-bargaining unit members. All dock workshould be performed by bargaining unit members,including all scanning, screening and handling offreight.Local 70 v. UPS, Oakland, CAOn behalf of all affected employees, Unionalleges a violation of Article 7. The Company isviolating contractual rights by working casualemployees as independent contractors; not payingtaxes, etc.Local 480 v. UPS, Nashville, TNOn behalf of Vaden Wilburn, Union alleges aviolation of Articles 40, 38 and all others thatapply. The Company is applying NMA Article41(2)(C) to full-time employees hired after8/1/08, in violation of Article 41(4) and Articleof the Addenda. Union asks that the Companycease this violation and that all affectedemployees be paid progression in accordance withthe Addenda and made whole for all losses.-45-