Acceptable registrations in the queue through April 6 at 7:45p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Decide This One

A place to talk about any topic on your mind (non-broadcasting related). General conversation.
User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Decide This One

Post by Turkeytop » Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:33 pm

Grievor #1 - Female, age 25

Job Title - Security Guard

Rate of Pay - $22.50/hr

Seniority - 4 years

Discipline Record - Good

Nature of Grievance - Improper removal from job site

Remedy Sought - Reinstatement to job site


Grievor #2 - Male, age 23

Job Title - Security Guard

Rate of Pay - $22.50/hr

Seniority - 2 years

Discipline Record - Good

Nature of Grievance - Improper removal from job site

Remedy Sought - Reinstatement to job site


Grievor #3 - Male, age 26

Job Title - Security Guard

Rate of Pay - $22.50/hr

Seniority - 3 years

Discipline Record - Good

Nature of Grievance - Improper removal from job site

Remedy Sought - Reinstatement to job site

The Employer is a large, multinational Security Company. They acquired the contract to provide security at one of the Japanese owned Auto Plants in Ontario. The contract with the Auto Company provided that the client could at any time request the removal of any of the security personnel from its site for any reason and the Security Company would remove them and replace them with other guards.

One day the client contacted the Security firm and requested to have the three guards removed. The Employer advised the three employees they would no longer be working at that site and offered them work at alternate job sites.

All three declined the offer to transfer and filed grievances.

Do they succeed?



Matt
Posts: 4240
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: Decide This One

Post by Matt » Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:44 pm

No.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 4927
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Bryce » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:12 pm

Were they of a somewhat darker skin pigmentation than the average Ontarian?


~ Joe Biden - Destroying America One Pen Stroke At A Time ~

User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Turkeytop » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:21 pm

Bryce wrote:
Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:12 pm
Were they of a somewhat darker skin pigmentation than the average Ontarian?

No. And the client could not legally request their removal for reasons that violated their Human Rights



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 4927
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Bryce » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:45 pm

So, as stated in your opening, the company could NOT request removal for ANY reason?


~ Joe Biden - Destroying America One Pen Stroke At A Time ~

User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Turkeytop » Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:51 pm

Bryce wrote:
Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:45 pm
So, as stated in your opening, the company could NOT request removal for ANY reason?


OK. For any legitimate reason The legitimacy of the reason is determined by the client. They don't want to get into a pissing contest over the reason.

Our collective agreement is with the Security Company, not the client. So we certainly can't challenge their decision.

Had the employer decided to discipline the employees, we could challenge that.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 4927
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Bryce » Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:12 pm

I'm guessing the company would have to re assign the guards to a new gig. If the client doesn't want them on their site, for whatever reason, their contract states they must be removed.

The security company doesn't have grounds to terminate, so they should be re assigned to a new job.


~ Joe Biden - Destroying America One Pen Stroke At A Time ~

User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Turkeytop » Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:21 pm

They were offered reassignment and declined the offer.



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 8407
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Decide This One

Post by Rate This » Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:23 pm

The company gives them disguises and puts them right back on site.

Sorry I couldn’t resist. I’m at a dead end on this one.



User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Turkeytop » Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:32 pm

I had to break the news to the three that they didn't have a grievance. The employer had not violated our collective agreement. The employer's offer to reassign them was still open. I strongly advised them to accept it.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 4927
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Bryce » Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:33 am

Turkeytop wrote:
Fri Feb 26, 2021 10:32 pm
I had to break the news to the three that they didn't have a grievance. The employer had not violated our collective agreement. The employer's offer to reassign them was still open. I strongly advised them to accept it.
Makes perfect sense to me.


~ Joe Biden - Destroying America One Pen Stroke At A Time ~

User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Turkeytop » Sat Feb 27, 2021 11:34 am

The reason the client wanted to be rid of these three is irrelevant to the case but probably the most interesting part of the story.

They worked the overnight shift, when the plant was empty. Their duties were as watch persons. There were three designated sectors in the building, one each of the three persons were assigned to one of the sectors.

They were required to do a walking tour of their sector every hour. Along their routes were stops where a bar coded label was affixed to a wall or pillar in the building's structure. They would scan the bar code with a hand held scanner they carried with them. The scanner would then record the location and the time.

Their tours would take them about 40 minutes, after which they would return to their station and upload the data from their scanner to the computer, do whatever paper work they had and look after their personal needs. Then they would commence their next tour.

One day, the client was reviewing the logs from the security and noticed something odd. The tours that should have taken about 40 minutes, were actually being completed in about one minute.

When they questioned the guards about it, they admitted that they had somehow reproduced copies of the bar codes and kept them in a binder at their desk Each hour, they would take their scanner and scan the bar codes, then get back to their video game or magazine.



MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 2955
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Worn, MI

Re: Decide This One

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:44 am

They were not terminated and declined the offer of reassignment. The contractor owes them nothing. And in most places I know, that counts as quitting/abandonment of assignment. The contractor owes them nothing unless they can provide proof in the contract that their employer must not reassign them.


My mom taught me an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's too bad Repubes don't believe in prevention for COVID, but they can deny someone water waiting in a line to vote.

User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: Decide This One

Post by Turkeytop » Sun Feb 28, 2021 1:32 pm

They were all offered reassignment. In fact, they were given several assignments from which to choose. None of them were as cushy or paid as well as the ones they had just lost. They all declined what was offered.

Instead, they went to the Ontario Labour Board and filed a complaint against their Union for failing to pursue their grievances more aggressively.



Matt
Posts: 4240
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: Decide This One

Post by Matt » Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:35 pm

They sound like typical union employees.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic