|
GUILD LEADER
GUILD
SCORES KEY ROUND IN 'POOR LOSER' COURT CASE
U.S.
MAGISTRATE SUPPORTS GUILD'S WIN FAULTS
PROJO ARGUMENT COMPANY,
MEANWHILE, CONTINUES FOOT-DRAGGING The Guild
has won a key round in the "Poor Loser" federal court case in
which The Journal is trying to escape the binding arbitration that it
lost last year about parking benefits. Robert
W. Lovegreen, a federal magistrate who held a hearing June 14 on the company's
appeal, recommended that the arbitration award in the union's favor be
upheld. The matter
now goes to a U.S. District Court judge for a final decision. The union
filed a grievance March 11, 1998, contending that the company improperly
turned away bargaining unit members from the Journal-owned Parkade garage,
even though they had purchased discount tickets to park there. Last December, arbitrator Tim Bornstein ruled in the Guild's favor. But this past February, the newspaper went to U.S. District Court to try to throw out the decision. In his
16-page "report and recommendation," which the Guild received
yesterday, Magistrate Lovegreen rejected a company argument that the contract
gave workers the right to purchase discounted parking tickets, but did
not guarantee parking spaces in the garage. "The
Journal argues that the parties did not intend that the parking passes
would actually provide a parking space," Lovegreen wrote. "This
argument is a red herring that tries to focus attention solely on the
employees' right to 'purchase' parking passes," Lovegreen said. The magistrate
noted that the arbitrator rejected that argument, and he said that he
did, too. "This
court cannot accept that the parties bargained over discount parking passes
that provided no parking, or whose use could be unilaterally terminated
by the Journal in the absence of a contract provision giving them that
right," he said. Turning
to court when you lose a binding arbitration decision is an unusual step
- since the purpose of arbitration is to have a fair and final way to
resolve disputes about the contract. The Guild
believes that the company is resorting to such cases - it has filed two
others in federal court - both to delay enforcement of the contract and
to waste the Guild's money on expensive court cases. (The Guild's national
office is picking up PNG's legal bills.) As part
of this case, the Guild had asked that the company be forced to pay its
legal costs because the Journal's case was without merit. But the magistrate recommended against the Guild's request. Lovegreen said the company had the right to go to court in this case, and that the suit did not trigger federal standards for being grossly ill-conceived. "The Journal's argument may be wrong, but it does not rise to the level of vexatiousness that compels an award of costs and attorney's fees," Lovegreen said. However, there is little doubt on the Guild's part that the company is using every means possible to delay and frustrate the union's efforts to enforce contract benefits. In a related development in the parking dispute, arbitrator Bornstein yesterday held a hearing about the award of damages to be paid to Guild members. And the company displayed more foot-dragging. The Guild has estimated the denied parking benefits from anecdotal evidence from Guild members of when they were turned away from the garage, located in back of the Biltmore Hotel. Yesterday, the company announced that it knows how many coupons were used - but it refused to give the Guild the information. The Guild registered an objection with the arbitrator, saying it needs to evaluate the company's records. The hearing was recessed by Bornstein until later in the year. Parking long has been an issue between Guild workers and the company - and the dispute continues into the current negotiations for a new contract. The company has offered "free" parking to all employees, but with the insistence that any parking provisions be kept outside the Guild contract. And further, the company says it wants the ability to unilaterally alter or even discontinue parking benefits. As negotiations have dragged on, the company has granted free parking to non-Guild employees, but not those in the union, with the exception of workers who are required to use their personal cars for Journal work. The arbitration dispute demonstrates why it's important to have fringe benefits nailed down in writing. In the past, the company provided free parking only to employees required to use their cars at work; for the rest, it had offered subsidized parking on its lots and the garage. Some workers bought monthly passes; others, including parttime workers, were allowed to buy cut-rate discount coupons at the Parkade for use on a per-day basis. But when downtown business started picking up, creating a parking shortage, the company began turning away coupon-holders from the Parkade. After the Guild filed its grievance, the company began stamping "subject to availability" on the discount tickets. The Journal contended that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in ruling in favor of the Guild and improperly interpreted the contract. However, Magistrate Lovegreen said that Bornstein reached a logical conclusion when he decided that the right to purchase discounted parking meant that that a place to park would go with it.
Bornstein had written: "Without consistently available parking, this clause provides no benefit to employees and is little more than an annoying penalty for those who have purchased passes." The magistrate agreed:"It makes no sense that the parties bargained over parking passes that did not provide consistent parking, or that their use could be unilaterally terminated by the Journal without a contract provision granting them that right."
TNG/CWA Local 31041 270 Westmister St., Providence, Rhode Island 02903 401-421-9466 | Fax: 401-421-9495 png@riguild.org |