Michigan Teamsters Joint Council No. 43
Mission statement
The Teamsters are America’s largest and most diverse union, over 1.4 million members. We are the organization that represent, and have been representing workers in the Detroit Metropolitan area since 1933. Belonging to a union is really about one thing; collective bargaining. When you belong to a union your terms and conditions of employment are in writing. Collective bargaining agreements are negotiated between the union and management. Then voted on by the members/employees. Once a collective bargaining agreement has been adopted the union polices and enforces the agreement.
William H. Black - Executive Director for Teamsters Joint Council 43
"Far too many of our families are at risk of losing health coverage from their employers"...
"far too many businesses are struggling because of high health care cost. We need a solution that will protect our working families".
Latest News
Michigan Teamsters versus U.S. FOODSERVICEThe Teamstsers Union has settled a legal dispute with U.S. FOODSERVICE concerning one employees wrongful discharge. U.S. FOODSERVICE is in the business of stocking and delivering food stuffs to commercial and institutional customers. The Grievant was a hi-lo driver in the 150,000 sq. ft. Wixom warehouse. He has worked for the company for 6-1/2 years. He was allegedly being accused of stealing time in violation of the Companies work rule 1-3, dishonesty or theft. The accusation of dishonesty/theft is made because of late returns from break periods in amounts ranging from 24 minutes to 1 hour late.
U.S. FOODSERVICE raised a defense that the Union and/or the Grievant were guilty of laches in the processing of this grievance. The company alleged that the delay in handling this grievance should result in a finding that the grievance is not arbitrable. It was found that under all circumstances, no violations by the Union occurred.
The Union did not contest the basic facts of what the grievant was accused of. Video proof showed that the grievant did not return promptly at the end of certain breaks. The video showed that he would continue to stay in the break room for prolong period of times. He would then sit on his hi-lo in the warm-up room for unjust periods. It was this failure to return to his duties promptly which caused the company to take action. The company charged this behavior as a violation of work rule 1-3, dishonesty or theft, warranting immediate suspension pending investigation, with the expectation of discharge without prior warnings for the first offence.
The Union did contest which work rule the grievant was being charged with. It was believed that the grievant should’ve been charged with work rule 3-3 which states:
Failure to notify U.S. Foodservice at least one (1) hour before their scheduled start time when unable to report to work as scheduled, failure to be in the assigned work area and ready to work at the designated starting times, including rest periods or wasting time, loitering or otherwise causing U.S. Foodservice to pay for time not worked.
It is here that the Union believes behavior exhibited by grievant fits precisely in to this above rule. The penalty for violation of work rule 3-3 is spelled out in the work rules and it is, for a first charged violation, a verbal warning. The failure of the employer to abide by its own work rules is a violation of the just cause principles, and merits a full award of reinstatement plus backpay.
The employer argued that the amount of time involved totaling 6 hours and 9 minutes over a period of 10 days, warranted a more serious charge. Company vice-president of operations testified that work rule 3-3 is not administered for being out of the work area for long periods of time. The grievant was terminated on February 12, 2007 based on his record of discipline, plus video evidence.
It was agreed that the record is sufficiently problematic to justify a suspension of some length. A suspension of 30 calendar days was more appropriately warranted. Final proceedings concluded that the employer was to put the grievant back to work, minus 30 calendar days wages which will be serve as an unpaid suspension. It was also concluded that both parties negotiated backpay and benefits due totaling an award amount of $131,733 on January 21, 2009.