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?
Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 30 at 9:00a 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
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
Re: Decide This One
No.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.
Re: Decide This One
Were they of a somewhat darker skin pigmentation than the average Ontarian?
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Decide This One
No. And the client could not legally request their removal for reasons that violated their Human Rights
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.
Re: Decide This One
So, as stated in your opening, the company could NOT request removal for ANY reason?
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Decide This One
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.
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.
Re: Decide This One
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.
The security company doesn't have grounds to terminate, so they should be re assigned to a new job.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Decide This One
They were offered reassignment and declined the offer.
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.
Re: Decide This One
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.
Sorry I couldn’t resist. I’m at a dead end on this one.
Re: Decide This One
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.
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.
Re: Decide This One
Makes perfect sense to me.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Decide This One
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.
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.
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.
-
MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: Decide This One
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.
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: Decide This One
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.
Instead, they went to the Ontario Labour Board and filed a complaint against their Union for failing to pursue their grievances more aggressively.
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.
Re: Decide This One
They sound like typical union employees.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.