union steward layed off

[mdp]

What is the name of your state? ohio
this is an interesting one, to say the least. I am a union construction worker.I was the job steward, My union hall filed a grievance against my employer a week ago. I was the witness to the proceedings that lead up to this grievance. I came in on monday morning and was told they were laying me off, and was given 2 hours showup time. I was the only one layed off. I always thought that as a job steward, you had some protections. apparently not??? Our hall does not have anything in the agreement stating that the job steward should be the last one layed off, besides the foreman, although it has been a long standing practice. It does state that the employer cannot hinder me in any way... So, I lost my job, and winters coming, and no one is hiring, so I totally got screwed by being the steward!!
My hall says they have no grounds for a grievance because we had nothing in our contract limiting when a steward can be layed off?? This doesnt make sense to me, shouldnt a steward be afforded some kind of job protections for standing up to an employer?? We are in the middle of a grievance that is going to go to national council for gods sake?? I was the only one on the job who was documenting things?? after everyone else on job saw what happened to me, theyd be insane to continue documenting, or be a witness to what the employers pulling?? Why would anyone in there right mind be a steward!!!!

 

[racer72]

If it's not in your CBA, it's legal.

 

[justalayman]

It may not be legal.

Regardless of what your CBA states, this seems to be a relatiatory act which is illegal. If your local will not support you, I would suggest contacting your IO level office and if no satisfaction, at least contact the NLRB personally.

Section 8(a)(4) prohibits certain actions stated in their literature as

“to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act.”

Oh, and as to the steward situation; in my union there is no requirement for the steward or forman to be the last laid off. It is totally employer discretion. The fact that it has historically been respected as you have stated in your area gives creedence to the claim of your actions being retaliatory in nature.

 

[racer72]

It may not be legal.

Regardless of what your CBA states, this seems to be a relatiatory act which is illegal. If your local will not support you, I would suggest contacting your IO level office and if no satisfaction, at least contact the NLRB personally.

Section 8(a)(4) prohibits certain actions stated in their literature as

Oh, and as to the steward situation; in my union there is no requirement for the steward or forman to be the last laid off. It is totally employer discretion. The fact that it has historically been respected as you have stated in your area gives creedence to the claim of your actions being retaliatory in nature.

Read the OP's other posts. The guy is also claiming to be injured on the job and cannot perform his job either. Plus he was laid off, not fired, big difference. If he can't perform his job due to injury and the employer cannot find suitable light duty work, laying him off is a perfectly acceptable and legal option.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=384739

 

[justalayman]

Read the OP's other posts. The guy is also claiming to be injured on the job and cannot perform his job either. Plus he was laid off, not fired, big difference. If he can't perform his job due to injury and the employer cannot find suitable light duty work, laying him off is a perfectly acceptable and legal option.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=384739

I haven't read the other thread yet but want to respond to the laid off v. fired. There is actually none. It is a matter of semantics. It is typical, in construction labor area, to lay off rather than fire due to the stigma it carries with it and the possiblity of litigation due to the employee disagreeing with the reason for firing. Simpler: lay them off with "reduction of workforce" as the reason and there is no legal recourse (typically). If it can be shown that the lay off or firing is in retaliation to (legal) union activities, there is recourse through the NLRB and its' rules regardless if it was a "lay off" or a "firing".


edit;

just read the other thread and it would be a tough row to hoe if he wanted to fight the termination as retaliatory but there may be something not known here that could still make it a possibility. Due to the local union's response, I would suggest there probably isn't though.