Swan Island Shutdown, Article 6, Section 4 Grievance Rejected By Local 162

[Tony R Cochran]

The union has officially declined to process the grievance; thereby rendering Article 6, Section 4, for all intents and purposes, meaningless.

Article6Sec4Grievance.pdf

[Tony R Cochran]

[Tony R Cochran]

Dear Local 162 Leadership,

This notification serves to address the union's anticipated refusal to process the grievance regarding the closure of the Swan Island facility for automation renovations, despite the protections explicitly outlined in Article 6, Section 4 of the National Master Agreement. This document has been prepared in advance, as such a refusal was expected based on prior statements made by union representatives. Below is an in-depth analysis of why the grievance is legitimate and the critical consequences of failing to enforce it.

---

The Grievance Is Contractually Legitimate


Technological Change Definition Applies

Article 6, Section 4 defines "technological change" as:

"...any meaningful change in equipment or materials which results in a meaningful change in the work, wages, hours, or working conditions... or diminishes the number of workers in any classification..."

The planned automation at Swan Island qualifies under this definition because it will:

• Result in the closure of the facility and the displacement of hundreds of employees.
• Diminish the number of workers in affected classifications within the bargaining unit.
• Significantly alter working conditions for Swan Island employees.

Notification and Bargaining Requirements Have Not Been Met


The agreement explicitly states:

"...notify the National Negotiating Committee six (6) months in advance of any such change and shall be required to bargain the effects of any such change."

UPS has failed to:

• Provide the required six-month advance notice to the National Negotiating Committee.
• Engage in meaningful bargaining regarding the effects of the automation on Swan Island employees.

The omission constitutes a direct violation of Article 6, Section 4. Obligation to Provide Training and Mitigate Impact


Additionally, the contract mandates:

"The Employer will review any training required for bargaining unit employees to perform new or modified work... or to utilize the new technology."

UPS has not demonstrated any plan to retrain or transition affected employees, leaving Swan Island workers without pathways to adapt to the automation changes.

---

Union representatives, including Matt Konz, have argued that Article 6 does not apply to technology that already exists in other facilities and that only "humanoid robots" would trigger protections under the clause. This interpretation is both:

• Unsupported by the contract language, which emphasizes the impact on the local bargaining unit, not the novelty of the technology.
• Detrimental to the integrity of the agreement, as it nullifies the protections negotiated for technological changes.

By refusing to process this grievance, the union effectively invalidates one of the most critical protections for workers facing automation.

---

Consequences of Failing to Enforce the Grievance

1. Setting a Dangerous Precedent: A refusal signals to UPS that they can bypass notification and bargaining obligations, encouraging future closures and layoffs.
2. Erosion of Worker Protections: The inability to enforce Article 6 will weaken the protections for all bargaining unit members, not just those at Swan Island.
3. Economic Devastation: Hundreds of jobs at Swan Island will be lost without a structured transition plan or retraining opportunities for affected employees.
4. Undermining Union Credibility:

---

Strong Contract Language Supports the Grievanceostensibly covered by strong, enforceable language. To decline to act now is to squander a rare opportunity to hold UPS accountable.

---

Conclusion


The grievance regarding the automation and closure of Swan Island is valid and necessary to uphold the protections enshrined in the National Master Agreement. I formally request the union to fulfill its duty of fair representation and process this grievance. Failure to do so will leave members vulnerable, undermine the contract, and necessitate further action, including legal remedies.

Sincerely,

Tony Cochran
Employee ID: 7308502

[Davis]

Your making a stronger argument then anything I've heard from the union. They talk about how great the contract is but they never want to use it. Thanks for all your work on this.

[Tony R Cochran]

Thank you, Davis. It's shockingly bad how active the Local is at moment--facilitating UPS's plans.

[Tony R Cochran]

Mark Davison responded to my email above:

Screenshot 2025-01-18 at 12.28.17?AM.png

[Tony R Cochran]

My reply to Mark Davison:

1. Lack of Notification and Committee Action
2. Premature Facilitation of Transfers
3. Classification of the Shutdown
4. Timely Grievance Filing Requirement
   • The Oregonian days later.
   • If Local 162 does not file this grievance or a grievance explicitly applying Article 6, Section 4 in a timely manner, I will have no choice but to file a ULP against both Local 162 (for failure to enforce the contract) and UPS (for failure to adhere to the contract).

This is a pivotal moment for Local 162 to demonstrate its commitment to defending the contract and protecting members' rights. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Tony Cochran
Employee ID: 7308502

[Tony R Cochran]

As I have said before, the Davison regime will collapse with this Swan Island debacle. Ben Vedus even expressed that he hopes the company will complete the project in 14, not 17, months! There is no resistance--and they ostensibly have no clue what UPS is about to do. He's also soliciting bargaining unit members to transfer to Hillsboro without a concrete plan.

I know UPS disbanded its HR; I did not realize they contracted the union to act as such.

Screenshot 2025-01-18 at 12.33.06?AM.jpg

[Thisischange?]

Tabled, a chickenshit way of avoiding public embarrassment while the attorneys figure this out.

[TheMilitantTeamster]

This whole thing is a fucked, union seems to have caved before they even knew the details. What about those of us who are FT inside? Split shifts coming?

[Tony R Cochran]

My response to Mark Davison
Screenshot 2025-01-19 at 2.24.51?PM.png

[Tony R Cochran]

Questions that Mark Davison must answer:

1. Notification and Planning:
2. Contract Enforcement:
   • Why has Article 6, Section 4 not been invoked in this case, especially given its explicit language on technological changes that diminish workforce numbers?
   • What steps, if any, have been taken to convene the National Teamster/UPS Technological Change Committee as required by the contract?
3. • Why is the union facilitating employee transfers to Hillsboro before any bargaining has occurred about the Swan Island shutdown?
   • Are there guarantees for employees transferring to Hillsboro about seniority, building attachment, and protections against future layoffs?
4. Grievance Timing and Strategy:
5. Classification of Shutdown:
6. Transparency and Member Involvement:
7. Broader Implications:
   • What is Local 162 doing to address the potential precedent set by allowing UPS to automate and close facilities without adherence to the contract?
   • How will the union ensure stronger enforcement of contract protections against automation in the future?

These will be put to him in various forms.

The pressure is building.

[Davis]

Every local in the country thats facing closure for automation should be filing the grievance you wrote. Then it would get attention.

[Tony R Cochran]

Every local in the country thats facing closure for automation should be filing the grievance you wrote. Then it would get attention.

Agreed, which is why I suspect that there is an MoA out there that we haven't seen explicitly limiting any technology existing in the UPS network from this section of the contract. We had that creepy MRA MoA that came out about week after the TA, which was signed as though it had been written on the same day as TA.

[Tony R Cochran]

any meaningful technological change that results in diminished numbers of workers, alterations to work conditions, or significant operational changes. Suggesting that only extreme scenarios like "humanoid robots" are covered renders this vital clause meaningless.

This misinterpretation fails to reflect the protections negotiated under Article 6, Section 4. If the union adopts this interpretation, it raises serious questions about its commitment to enforcing the contract.

Opposition to Federal Involvement in Union MattersPotential Financial Liability for the UnionWhy Federal Action is NecessaryClosing

[WTF891]

Is this the OZ militancy? This is going to kill the WCOT pension fund. Along with cutting the pension contributions by 50 cents you are writing off tens of thousands of contribitory members, many of whom never vest. This is an absolute mess and the bOZo's are asleep at the wheel.

Historic!!!!!

[TheMilitantTeamster]

Is this the OZ militancy? This is going to kill the WCOT pension fund. Along with cutting the pension contributions by 50 cents you are writing off tens of thousands of contribitory members, many of whom never vest. This is an absolute mess and the bOZo's are asleep at the wheel.

Historic!!!!!

Also possible that combo jobs will be lost and some FTers working split shifts AT DIFFERENT FACILITIES some 25 miles apart!!!!