NATURE OF GRIEVANCE: The Union continues to assert the Employer has violated Rule 35 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), between the State of Alaska and the Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific (IBU). The Union claims Mr. Uddipa submitted a valid MD UFFD and, for this reason, there was no contractual violation on Mr. Uddipa’s part. Furthermore, asserting that the Employer can’t discipline on suspicion.
RELIEF SOUGHT: Rescind Mr. Uddpa’s LOW as no contract rule was violated.
CONTRACT VIOLATIONS CITED: Rule 35
FACTUAL BACKGROUND: On October 5, 2016, Mr. Uddipa submitted a vacation request to Dispatch for the dates of December 21, 2016 through January 15, 2017. Which was denied on November 28, 2016 due to insufficient manning. …show more content…
Uddipa had a conversation with Mr. Sebcioglu in which Mr. Sebcioglu stated he couldn’t reverse the denied vacation, to which Mr. Uddipa responded saying “I’m just going to fill out my paperwork” and Mr. Sebcioglu replied “I don’t know what paperwork you are referring to, but whatever you are trying to do, I’m not condoning it”. At the pre-determination meeting on January 20, 2017, Mr. Uddipa didn’t recall his statement referring to filling out the paperwork but did recall Mr. Sebcioglu’s comment that he was not condoning whatever Mr. Uddipa was trying to do. Mr. Uddipa had bought the plane tickets to go on vacation to see his daughter and meet his newborn grandson before the vacation request was submitted and denied. He also stated that the minimum notice to request vacation is 2 months ahead, which he did. It is important to note that Mr Uddipa flew to Oklahoma on November 30, 2016; so he was out of town at the time he was posted on the crew list. Mr. Uddipa stated he bought an open plane ticket but he had planned to stay in Oklahoma through January 11th.
On December 20, 2016, Mr. Uddipa submitted a UFFD to Dispatch which stated he was UFFD from December 22, 2016 through January 5,
RELIEF SOUGHT: Rescind Mr. Uddpa’s LOW as no contract rule was violated.
CONTRACT VIOLATIONS CITED: Rule 35
FACTUAL BACKGROUND: On October 5, 2016, Mr. Uddipa submitted a vacation request to Dispatch for the dates of December 21, 2016 through January 15, 2017. Which was denied on November 28, 2016 due to insufficient manning. …show more content…
Uddipa had a conversation with Mr. Sebcioglu in which Mr. Sebcioglu stated he couldn’t reverse the denied vacation, to which Mr. Uddipa responded saying “I’m just going to fill out my paperwork” and Mr. Sebcioglu replied “I don’t know what paperwork you are referring to, but whatever you are trying to do, I’m not condoning it”. At the pre-determination meeting on January 20, 2017, Mr. Uddipa didn’t recall his statement referring to filling out the paperwork but did recall Mr. Sebcioglu’s comment that he was not condoning whatever Mr. Uddipa was trying to do. Mr. Uddipa had bought the plane tickets to go on vacation to see his daughter and meet his newborn grandson before the vacation request was submitted and denied. He also stated that the minimum notice to request vacation is 2 months ahead, which he did. It is important to note that Mr Uddipa flew to Oklahoma on November 30, 2016; so he was out of town at the time he was posted on the crew list. Mr. Uddipa stated he bought an open plane ticket but he had planned to stay in Oklahoma through January 11th.
On December 20, 2016, Mr. Uddipa submitted a UFFD to Dispatch which stated he was UFFD from December 22, 2016 through January 5,