cllo

Lik: i been working for almost three years and both me and the senior staff schedule have never change. which is one of the reason i actually stay with the job.

and my manager is not taking any part of it. cause she afraid to deal with the union. me and my supervisior (GM and controller love her, but shes on vacation, i know bad timing) take that the rule only apply to getting the 40hrs of work not day off.

Lik

Sigh... I hope things go well for you la. And don't forget, if you are not happy with the ruling, make sure you grieve it. That is how the game is played, and there is nothing wrong with standing up for your rights, esp when what you do is entirely within the rules.

-Lik

cllo

dam. stupid manager not doing anything. just letting whatever the old staff and union say.
and the union lady call me, saying this is how it is. senority have the right to pick shift.
but she caught me at a bad time, so i can fight the rule at that time.
but according to 8.05(a) "employer must offer and assign the longest shifts to employees with the most seniority." not assign the longest shift choice by the employees with the most seniority.

cllo

can someone help me define "the employer will make every reasonable effort to apply the principles of seniority to the assignment of shifts which are equal in length." from that 8.05(e)

will you take the principles of seniority as with in context of section 8.05 shifts by seniority.
or
will you think general principles of seniority.

thanks ppl.

cllo

so here is the news. the union still saying thats seniority have right to pick shift.

she even go as far as saying it is not part of the Collective agreement and this is how seniority works.
at the end, she basicly cut me off by saying she have to go to a meeting and cant chat with me.
she did mention about past practice. but i didnt get a chance to ask when what what those examples are.
I did get a chance to quote one section. "in situations other than emergencies, the scheduled employees are entitled for fourty-eight hours notice of any change in their repective work schedules." than i said acorrding to that. employer have the final say in anything scheduling.
but the union lady try to say that rule apply in case of someone is sick, schedule need to be change. blah blah blah. and then to run away by saying she have meeting to go to.

so i know base on the collective agreement seniority doesnt have right to pick shift. but how much power does past practice have. past practice could be use to rule thing that isnt stated on the agreement, but what if something that is on the agreement.
like the one i quoted. "in situations other than emergencies, the scheduled employees are entitled for fourty-eight hours notice of any change in their repective work schedules." that would basicly blow past practice of senority can pick shift out of the water. if i intend to use it as one of my fighting points.

cllo

btw what step should i take to do this now. since the union rep of our hotel dont want to talk to me no more.

Lik

First of all, I would try contacting the union rep again (but in writing, say email), and get him to put his words in writing. Additional, I would also ask for clarification on what your options are should you want to proceed further. As your union representation, even though his explanation might be unsatisfactory to you, he is still obligated to provide you with the information you need to proceed further.

If you are still looking to escalate the issue, I think the next step beyond your union rep / shop steward is the union chair at your workplace. You can bring the issue directly to his attention, mentioning that you have already discussed the matter with your union rep. You might also want to get him to put something in writing -- again, I think email might be easier to solicit than something written on paper.

After that, if the informal resolutions aren't working, I think the next step is filing a formal complain. If an official ruling comes back and you are still unsatisfied, I think you can still file for grievance on the ruling and have a tribunal look at the issue. But beyond the filing of a formal complain, I think the specific rules and procedures would depend on the CBA or the union.

One unfortunate reality is, when your union rep doesn't agree with your view, there is a good chance that it'll turn into a long and drawn out ordeal. Coworkers related or unrelated to the incident might also start taking sides (although the smart ones will stand clear of the issue), and your relationship with the coworker in question will very likely deteriorate regardless of how the issue plays out. So you have to consider whether escalation is worth your trouble and the consequences.

Good luck with your decision la.

-Lik

cllo

the problem is the union rep is responding to the matter with things that wont hold up in court, like "this is how seniority works", "not all rule need to be listed in the CBA for it to apply" (aka this case.), "past practice without examples", and etc. i would think everyone will be unsatisfactory with those answer, if those are to be used against them.

i cant believe i pay all those union due to pay for this kind of people.

anyway, she did say she will send me a letter (snail mail. seriously.). I will have to wait for that and see what happen.

Lik

It's a good that the she will send you something in writing. Should you decide to proceed further with your complaint, the stuff written in black and white will likely carrry more weight than anything she said.

Keep us posted, and I wish you good luck la.

-Lik

cllo

update.

So this is the letter recvied by my manager today.
"Re; Scheduling Preference
The union understands that XYZ empolyee has requested a change in her work shifts.  The union writes to you to honour her seniority in choosing her shifts, as per the collective agreement Articles 8 and 9, and as per past pracice."

Seriously, thats all the union rep wrote. This is after the fact I have written to request a formal answer from her.
espeically, since on the phone the rep did admit to me already that it is not in articles 8 and 9. and as per practice. there is no examples given by her to support the ruling.