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.

The clause focuses on the effects on the bargaining unit, not the novelty of the technology itself. The union’s assertion that pre-existing technology is excluded from grievance procedures is unfounded, as the contract does not contain language limiting applicability based on the pre-existence of the technology elsewhere.

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’s Interpretation Undermines the Agreement


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: Failing to act demonstrates an unwillingness to defend member interests, eroding trust in the union’s ability to advocate for its members.

---

Strong Contract Language Supports the Grievance


Ironically, the protections in Article 6 were negotiated, in part, by the same leadership currently facilitating these layoffs. Unlike the day shift elimination—which was inadequately addressed due to contract weaknesses—this situation is ostensibly 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:

Dear President Davison,

I hope this message finds you well.

As we approach February 1st, marking six months before UPS’s planned closure of Swan Island, several critical issues demand immediate clarification and action.

1. Lack of Notification and Committee Action
   • Article 6, Section 4 requires that the National Teamster/UPS Technological Change Committee meet to review technological changes and their impact on the bargaining unit. Why has this committee not been convened regarding Swan Island’s automation and closure?
   • Was Local 162 provided at least 45 days' notice about Hillsboro Twilight’s schedule change from Sunday-Thursday to Monday-Friday? Such a shift would have provided critical insight into upcoming network changes, particularly those impacting Swan Island.
2. Premature Facilitation of Transfers
   • Why is Local 162 facilitating employee transfers to Hillsboro before bargaining over Swan Island’s closure has occurred? Without transparent information and comprehensive bargaining, encouraging transfers undermines members' leverage and suggests a resignation to UPS’s plans.
   • When members are told their Swan Island seniority will carry over to Hillsboro, does this mean Swan Island building seniority will become Hillsboro seniority? Or will it remain tied to Swan Island? This lack of clarity adds unnecessary stress to an already volatile situation.
3. Classification of the Shutdown
   • Referring to the Swan Island closure as a mere “change of operations” appears to bypass the explicit protections of Article 6, Section 4, which covers technological changes. Are you excluding these contractual provisions from the Class Action grievance?
   • Article 6, Section 4’s language is clear: meaningful changes in work or workforce reduction due to technology require notification, bargaining, and the involvement of the National Technological Change Committee. To disregard these provisions weakens the contract and sets a dangerous precedent.
4. Timely Grievance Filing Requirement
   • Under the contract, I have 20 days from the time of an offense to file a grievance. The offense in question—namely, UPS publicly notifying employees and the public of the Swan Island shutdown—occurred no later than January 2nd, when it was shared by Local 162, and was subsequently reported in 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).

Facilitating UPS’s actions without challenging their compliance creates an impression of acquiescence rather than advocacy. This approach, coupled with the union's lack of transparency about key contractual mechanisms, erodes members’ trust and weakens our collective power.

I urge Local 162 to act decisively by:

• Convening the National Technological Change Committee immediately.
• Clarifying the union’s position on Article 6, Section 4 in relation to Swan Island.
• Ensuring no further employee transfers are facilitated without clear, bargained agreements about Swan Island’s fate.

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:
   • When did Local 162 first learn of UPS’s plans to shut down Swan Island for automation?
   • Was the union notified at least 45 days in advance of the Hillsboro Twilight schedule change as required by Article 6, Section 4?
   • If notification was received, why was this not used to anticipate broader network changes, including Swan Island?
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. Union’s Role in Facilitating Transfers:
   • 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:
   • Why was the initial grievance filed by a member regarding Swan Island’s closure tabled instead of processed within the required 20-day timeline?
   • What is the union’s plan to ensure grievances addressing the automation and shutdown are timely and effective?
5. Classification of Shutdown:
   • Why is the Swan Island closure being referred to as a “change of operations” rather than a technological change under Article 6, Section 4?
   • Does the union believe the provisions of Article 6, Section 4 do not apply in this case? If so, why?
6. Transparency and Member Involvement:
   • What efforts has Local 162 made to communicate with and involve members in addressing Swan Island’s closure?
   • Why were employees not informed about the contractual mechanisms, like Article 6, Section 4, that could be used to address the shutdown?
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]

Dear President Davison,

I am writing to formally address Local 162’s decision to table my grievance related to the announced shutdown and automation of the Swan Island facility. Unfortunately, I must reiterate that if this grievance—or an appropriate Class Action grievance under Article 6, Section 4 of the National Master Agreement—is not pursued within the required timeframe, I will have no choice but to file Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges against Local 162 and UPS.

Concerns Regarding Union Representative Matt Konz’s Interpretation of Article 6, Section 4

Union representative Matt Konz’s suggestion that Article 6, Section 4 only applies to "humanoid robots" as a threshold for meaningful technological change is entirely unreasonable and inconsistent with the contract’s language. The provision explicitly addresses 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 Matters

I want to make it clear that filing ULP charges is not an action I take lightly. As a union member, I believe in resolving these issues internally whenever possible. However, the stakes in this case are extraordinarily high. The livelihoods of hundreds of Swan Island workers hang in the balance, and the union’s refusal to act has forced me to pursue every available legal remedy to ensure our rights under the contract are upheld.

Potential Financial Liability for the Union

Local 162’s inaction could expose it to financial liability for failing to enforce the contract. Under the NLRA, unions have a Duty of Fair Representation, which requires them to represent members without arbitrariness, bad faith, or discrimination. Should it be determined that Local 162 breached this duty, it is conceivable that affected members could seek damages for lost wages or other harm resulting from the union’s failure to act.

Why Federal Action is Necessary

The announcement of the Swan Island shutdown and automation constitutes a clear violation of Article 6, Section 4. February 1st marks six months prior to the planned shutdown, yet there has been no meeting of the National Teamster/UPS Technological Committee as required. Additionally, Local 162’s solicitation of transfers to Hillsboro undermines any effort to bargain over the effects of this closure.

Finally, my grievance was filed well within the contractually-mandated 20-day window following the public announcement of the closure, which occurred on January 2nd. The refusal to process my grievance—or file an appropriate Class Action grievance—risks forfeiting a critical opportunity to enforce the contract and protect our members.

Closing

This letter was prepared in advance because Local 162’s response to my grievance was anticipated. I hope this situation can still be resolved internally, but if not, I will be filing ULP charges against Local 162 for failure to fulfill its Duty of Fair Representation and against UPS for failing to adhere to the National Master Agreement.

I urge you to reconsider the decision to table my grievance and take immediate steps to enforce the protections guaranteed under Article 6, Section 4.

Sincerely,
Tony Cochran

[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!!!!