• Action Center

    Following years of debate to build consensus, it is time to pass this vital and carefully constructed legislation, a bipartisan compromise bill that will bring financial stability to the Postal Service. The legislation includes key provisions of importance to the men and women who are the backbone of the Postal Service. First, H.R. 3076 eliminates the mandate that the Postal Service pre-fund its retiree health care benefits decades in advance, a requirement asked of no other public or private agency. Second, this legislation adopts private-sector best practice by maximizing the integration of postal annuitants into Medicare—a program to which the Postal Service and its workers have contributed more than $34 billion. Additionally, the legislation benefits the public by codifying the mandate to provide six-day mail delivery, which has been required by an Appropriation rider since the 1980s. Some 159 million business and residential customers rely on six-day delivery. The Postal Service is a vital public institution, self-sustaining and non-taxpayer-funded. Enactment of this legislation will restore and strengthen its financial stability, allowing it to improve service and respond to the evolving needs of American businesses and the families it serves.
    Download Our App!

    Important Links
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    USPS Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
    National Postal Mail Handlers Union
    Laborers International Union of North America
    AFL-CIO
    Union Plus
    The Union Boot Pro
    Union Made In America (AFL-CIO)
    US Department of Veterans Affairs
    VA - Camp Lejeune Water Contamination
    Follow Us!
    Facebook icon
    << May 2022 >>
    S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30 31
    Labor Headlines

    US labour news headlines from LabourStart

    IATSE DEI Committee Statement on Buffalo Mass Shooting
    How workers got left behind in the pandemic while shareholder wealth soared
    The year workers said 'no'
    Trump officials, meat companies knew workers were at risk for COVID-19, report says
    AFL-CIO on racially motivated killing in Buffalo
    Contact Elected Officials!
  • WEINGARTEN RIGHTS

    WEINGARTEN RIGHTS

    Weingarten rights guarantee an employee the right to Union representation during an investigatory interview. These rights, established by the Supreme Court, in 1975 in the case of J. Weingarten Inc, must be claimed by the employee. The supervisor has no obligation to inform an employee that s/he is entitled to Union representation.

    What is an Investigatory Interview?

    An investigatory interview is one in which a Supervisor questions an employee to obtain information which could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his/her conduct. If an employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or discharge may result from what s/he says, the employee has the right to request Union representation.

    Examples of such an interview are:

    The interview is part of the employer's disciplinary procedure or is a component of the employer's procedure for determining whether discipline will be imposed.

    The purpose of the interview is to investigate an employee's performance where discipline, demotion or other adverse consequences to the employee's job status or working conditions are a possible result.

    The purpose of the interview is to elicit facts from the employee to support disciplinary action that is probable or that is being considered, or to obtain admissions of misconduct or other evidence to support a disciplinary decision already made.

    The employee is required to explain his/her conduct, or defend it during the interview, or is compelled to answer questions or give evidence.

    An employee must state to the employer that he/she wants a Union representative present; the employer has no obligation to ask: the employee if she/he wants a representative.

    Weingarten Rules

    When an investigatory interview occurs, the following rules apply:

    Rule 1 - The employee must make a clear request for Union representation before or during the interview. The employee can't be punished for making this request.

    Rule 2 - After the employee makes the request, the supervisor has 3 options. S/he mug either:

    1. Grant the request and delay the interview until the Union representative arrives and has a chance to consult privately with the employee: or
    2. Deny the request and end the interview immediately; or
    3. Give the employee a Choice of: 1)having the interview without representation or 2) ending the interview

    Rule 3 - If the supervisor denies the request and continues to ask questions, this is an unfair labor practice and the employee has a right to refuse to answer. The employee cannot be disciplined for such refusal but is required to sit there until the supervisor terminates the interview. Leaving before this happens may constitute punishable insubordination.

    Union Representative's Rights Under Weingarten

    You are not required to merely be 'silent witness'. You have the right to:

    Be informed by the supervisor of the subject matter of the interview.

    Take the employee aside for a private conference before questioning begins.

    Speak during the interview.

    Request that the supervisor clarify a question so that what is being asked is understood.

    Give employee advice on how to answer a question.

    Provide additional information to the supervisor at the end of the questioning.

    You do not have the right to tell the employee not to answer nor, obviously, to give false answers. An employee can be disciplined for refusing to answer questions.

    A standard statement to suggest to members is:

    "If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or discharged, request that my Union representative be present at the meeting. Without representation, I choose not to answer any questions."

    An employee has no right to the presence of a Union representative where:

    The meeting is merely for the purpose of conveying work instructions, training, or communicating needed corrections in the employee's work techniques.

    The employee is assured by the employer prior to the interview that no discipline or employment consequences can result from the interview.

    The employer has reached a final decision to impose certain discipline on the employee prior to the interview, and the purpose of the interview is to inform the employee of the discipline or to impose it.

    Any conversation or discussion about the previously determined discipline which is initiated by the employee and without employer encouragement or instigation after the employee is informed of the action.

    Even in the above four (4) circumstances, the employee can still ask for representation. Most employers will permit a representative to attend even when not required to.




    Page Last Updated: Jun 18, 2019 (13:15:52)
  • NPMHU LOCAL 301

    Copyright © 2022.
    All Rights Reserved.

    Powered By UnionActive

    175691 hits since Jun 11, 2019


  • Top of Page image