Grievance committee? To enforce what contract?
We were advised by the district, pre-ratification, to file 'grievances' where warranted. So we did. IAM support, advise, etc. after the fact? None. "Well, you don't have a contract, yet" was the specific answer from the district when support was requested.
I am pleased as punch CLT saw the wisdom is providing education to its fleet members prior to the contract being activated.
But they didn't have to, and many locals chose not to.
Don't start with "that's a local problem, not an IAM one" because the district knew it was happening, and did squat about it.
All of which continues to validate my theory. CLT was in the long term picture, and warranted IAM attention. The initial class II stations, and the soon-to-be-outsourced ones, never got the time of day from the district. No one from a former, or about to be former, station ever sat on an NC, either.
Anecdotal proof? Our local did not prosecute ONE grievance to arbitration, including terminations. For those not familiar with the procedure, the steward presents and argues the grievance to the manager (step I), the lodge grievance committtee deals with the regional director (step II) and the DISTRICT AGC brings the case to Labor Relations (step III). If the case is unresolved at that point, THE DISTRICT can decide to bring the case to binding arbitration. I know for a fact CLT, PHL and BOS had no such problem arbitrating terminations.
I know for a fact CLT got much better union supprort than the out-stations. I know too many committeemen, and know what the out-stations have been thru, to believe any different.
So CLT puts folks on committees? We elect ours. Hmmmmm.
Let me save you some trouble. Respond if you wish, and have the last word. I am done for a while, because it has occurred to me that I need to watch my back from more than one direction.