Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does this seem odd? Pennsylvania

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does this seem odd? Pennsylvania

    I came into work this morning and they pulled me into the Captains office to talk to me about some incident. I gave them the speech, 'If this meeting is disciplinary in nature and may result in any disciplinary action up to but not limited to termination I wish to have my union steward present." So they say he isn't in today, apparently the shop steward is off today. They present me with the "Charges" including a partner's report, that are dated yesterday. The incident was reported to have happened in February. Supposedly my partner is really upset, and was terribly offended, but yet he makes the report yesterday. So, I pointed this out and they refused to discuss it. It seems really odd to me that they picked a day that both my partner and my steward have scheduled off, and that is conspicuously close on the heels of filing a union related grievance. What do you guys think?

  • #2
    I was thinking Weingarten, but then I read through your other posts.
    Senior Professional in Human Resources and Certified Staffing Professional with over 30 years experience. Any advice provided is based upon experience and education, but does not constitute legal advice.

    Comment


    • #3
      I am unfamiliar with Weingarten. Can you tell me more about it?

      Comment


      • #4
        You can ask your union rep about your Weingarten rights.

        Union employees have them. Folks in non-union workplaces sometimes do, sometimes don't, depending upon the NLRB composition. The latest from the NLRB is that folks without union representation don't have the right.

        That could change if the compostion of the NLRB changes with a different President.
        Senior Professional in Human Resources and Certified Staffing Professional with over 30 years experience. Any advice provided is based upon experience and education, but does not constitute legal advice.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh, thats the actual name of the "not now kid you bother me." card we read from that I qoted in my original post.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stridor View Post
            I came into work this morning and they pulled me into the Captains office to talk to me about some incident. I gave them the speech, 'If this meeting is disciplinary in nature and may result in any disciplinary action up to but not limited to termination I wish to have my union steward present." So they say he isn't in today, apparently the shop steward is off today. They present me with the "Charges" including a partner's report, that are dated yesterday. The incident was reported to have happened in February. Supposedly my partner is really upset, and was terribly offended, but yet he makes the report yesterday. So, I pointed this out and they refused to discuss it. It seems really odd to me that they picked a day that both my partner and my steward have scheduled off, and that is conspicuously close on the heels of filing a union related grievance. What do you guys think?
            Since it doesn't appear to be disciplinary, Weingarten doesn't apply. It doesn't seem odd that they would choose a day that your partner is out as it is often best if the complainer is not around in case the complainee takes it poorly.

            As for timing, it depends entirely on when the partner reported it. If it was reported recently, then it isn't odd at all.
            I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

            Comment


            • #7
              I mean that the alledged incident happened almost a year ago. Now maybe I'm just peculiar, but if I were terribly upset, horribly offended and the like, I wouldn't wait 8 months to report the incident. My partner and I work together, we don't like each other, we don't hang out after hours, adn we have agreements that keep the peace on the truck. He didn't report the incident for eight months, now they want to either change my scheduled partner and shift to a less desirable one, or suspend me, because he is horribly offended. He can't work with me anymore, because of something that happened eight months ago? Please, give me a break. Not to mention
              This all came up ONE DAYafter I filed my union grievance. His and my supervisors loyalties lie in a similar direction where mine lie opposite. I feel I am being singled out for my union activities.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes the timing is odd but your partner has no stake in your union issue and has no way of knowing what your employer will do as a result of reporting it. There are times that I have found out about incidents well after they have happened and felt them worthy of addressing, even after the fact. You can bring it up to your union, but just the timing alone doesn't make is suspicious if the behavior was just reported.

                I have no way of knowing why your partner did not report it before.
                I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ElleMD View Post
                  Yes the timing is odd but your partner has no stake in your union issue and has no way of knowing what your employer will do as a result of reporting it.
                  Actually my partner IS my union issue. I have a bargaining agreement that specifically states that I have choice of partners and I asked my boss to get rid of him eight months ago, and he wouldn't. It has been a war of write ups since then and I filed a union grievance to get him off of my truck. Since he is related by marriage to my leiutenant , and since the only place for him to go if he leaves my truck is commonly referred to as "the jungle" (medic 22) my boss wants to get me out of my current house and into medic 22's house.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So you have been trying to get rid of the guy for 8 months and you wonder why he feels harassed by you? And, you have been written up several tmes since then? Sorry but I'm not at all seeing how this is suddenly out of the blue coming to the surface as retaliation for filing the grievance. Sounds like he finally had enough and reported what someone already knew was happening or you wouldn't have been written up.
                    I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Since it doesn't appear to be disciplinary, Weingarten doesn't apply
                      some "liberal" interperetations of weingarten claim that the purpose of the interview does not need to be disciplinary, only that the employee sees it as such, for weingarten to apply.......imho

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ElleMD View Post
                        So you have been trying to get rid of the guy for 8 months and you wonder why he feels harassed by you? And, you have been written up several tmes since then? Sorry but I'm not at all seeing how this is suddenly out of the blue coming to the surface as retaliation for filing the grievance. Sounds like he finally had enough and reported what someone already knew was happening or you wouldn't have been written up.
                        I guess next time I need to spell it out from the beginning in the most excruciating of details. I have been working with this man for eight months, wondering if today, or night as it were, would be the night he snaps and comes in with a glock 19 and kills us all. The write ups I mentioned have been file by me against him. They tell a story about a burned out, post traumatic stress disordered, ineffectual, assaultive, abusive, psychotic, paramedic who plays soundtracks of machine gun fire over the pa system as we pass dope corners, plays back sabbath and metallica over the pa system at 3 am, makes up vitals, walks cardiac patients to the truck, attaches an ekg to people's forehead and then tells them they are brain dead, and carries a gun on the ambulance. This man is dangerous to me, to my patients, to the general public, and to himself. So, if that's harrassment, then yeah I guess I'm the @sshole here. Since I'm gonna get canned from this board for what comes next I have to speak my mind here. You assumed a great deal of things from my post and you are a HR professional. If you treat the people you work for an d with like this then congratulations, you represent the majority of employers who overlook outright insanity and punish people who try to do their jobs. I have turned in write up after write up that have been ignored and when he kills somebody either through neglect or malice the city, i.e. myself and all the taxpayers, will have to pay for. With logic like yours, you have a stellar career with the Philadelphia Fire department administration waiting just north of you since I really hope that MD is not a title you have.
                        Last edited by Stridor; 10-11-2006, 03:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          MD refers to the state she lives in, not her profession.

                          And no one here reads minds. We don't know a thing that is not in your post. No one has a crystal ball - if you don't provide the details, we are free to draw our own conclusions based on what you do say.
                          The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by noiddodge View Post
                            some "liberal" interperetations of weingarten claim that the purpose of the interview does not need to be disciplinary, only that the employee sees it as such, for weingarten to apply.......imho
                            Do you have a citation for that? I've not ever seen a court that has upheld such a thing.

                            Stridor- My ESP is on the fritz and my Psychic Friend is out of town. If you don't share the whole story, I don't know the whole story.
                            I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              And I think this thread has gone far enough.

                              Noiddodge, if you have a citation you want to provide, let me know by PM and I'll reopen the thread long enough for you to do so. Otherwise, I think we're done here.
                              The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X