JUDGE THWARTS THE JOURNAL'S ATTEMPT TO DELAY DUES CASE

Guild plans second United Way donor drive The Providence Newspaper Guild is planning to conduct its second drive for United Way of Southeastern New England donations. Details will be announced soon. The union membership recommended late last year that the Guild conduct its own campaign, rather than participating in the drive run by The Journal Co. Some members had objected to the company taking credit for the generosity of Guild members at a time when the company made it much harder for Guild members to give because they hadn't had a regular raise since January, 1999. The result was the first-ever Guild campaign, which raised $6,786 from 63 members, despite the fact that The Journal's campaign began earlier. The Guild's campaign was not meant to hurt the United Way. In fact, the hope was that people who would have been turned off by the company drive would be encouraged to give on behalf of the union. United Way officials praised the Guild's effort. "Because of the efforts of organized labor, we are able to truly be a strong community partner. Many people in our community, including fellow brothers and sisters, will be helped due to your unwavering support," wrote the R.I. AFL-CIO Community Services/ United Way SENE

• U.S. judge first ordered company to arbitrate refusal to obey contract's union membership & dues rules.

• Judge Lisi now rejects company's attempts to stall arbitration while it appeals her initial decision.

• The company's moves are part of a "justice-delayed, justice-denied'' attack against the Guild.

In a court win for the Guild, a federal judge has blocked another company attempt to drag its feet in a key dispute with the union.

U.S. District Court Judge Mary M. Lisi has turned down a request by the company to delay arbitration of a Guild grievance that charges that the company improperly stopped payroll collection and enforcement of the union membership clause.

The company has been trying to thwart resolution of this matter for 1½ years by using the federal courts to block arbitration.

THIS IS PART OF A WIDER CAMPAIGN to wear down the Guild, by stalling resolution of matters where it has violated the contract, a so-called "justice-delayed, justice-denied'' series of moves against the union.

But for the second time in two months, Judge Lisi blocked the company's delaying tactics.

In a short ruling issued Nov. 1, 2001, Lisi turned down the company's request to "stay'' or stop the arbitration of the dues/union membership dispute.

The company tried this ploy after Lisi on Sept. 19 issued a much more detailed ruling, in which she said that the Guild is on solid legal ground in asking an arbitrator to rule whether the company was wrong to stop dues collection and foil union membership.

Rather than get down to the business of arbitration, the company appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals. And to further slow down matters, it asked for a stay until the appeals court issues its decision.

BUT LISI SHOT THAT DOWN and denied the stay.

This leaves the Guild free to press forward with the arbitration process, seeking selection of an arbitrator to hear the case.

The company clearly is using time as a weapon against the Guild.

It has moved with glacial slowness on negotiations - the upcoming Nov. 14 bargaining session will be the first since Feb. 14. And it's using the courts to bog down the grievance and arbitration process.

The company's stalling tactics are all the more annoying because of its past statements claiming that it abhors drawn-out legal fights.

A good example of the paper's hypocrisy is how the company handled another matter, the so-called "me-too'' dispute, in which the Guild claimed it was owed an extra 1.02 percent on the last wage increase it was granted, in January, 1999.

In that case, the Guild went to arbitration, won the arbitration and then had to deal with company attempts to arbitrate clarifications of the decision. Even then, the company for two months spurned Guild requests to fork over the pay raise and only paid in May after the Guild was forced to ask a federal judge to enforce the arbitration award.

THE CURRENT CASE involves the company's February 2000 move to stop collecting union dues through payroll deduction, and further, to stop enforcing the "union security" clause of the contract that requires most members to either belong to the Guild to or pay dues.

Since then, the Guild has been forced to collect dues itself, sending out monthly bills, or asking union members to allow automatic deductions by credit card.

Guild members have risen to the challenge and most are paying dues. But it's time-consuming for members and union officials, and it's an obvious attempt to starve the union treasury. Meanwhile, in another attempt to hurt the Guild, the company has said it no longer has to enforce the so-called "union security'' clause.

Although the company allowed the contract to expire February, 2000, most "terms and conditions'' of the pact remain in effect. But the company has claimed that it doesn't have to enforce the dues and membership clauses, or to arbitrate the grievance.

THE GUILD CLAIMS that under the wording of our contract, dues check-off remains in effect. The union also says that a special contract provision says that the union security provision stays in force through the next contract, so that both matters can be grieved.

In September, Lisi agreed the matter can go to arbitration.

In her Nov. 1 ruling turning down the stay, she said that the company hadn't shown it was likely to win the appeal or that it would suffer irreparable financial harm if the arbitration process goes forward. Instead, she indicated that the Guild is the party claiming to be hurt by the dues-membership problem.

Lisi wrote that "The Journal merely asserts that a stay would 'not injure the defendant. The Journal supports this assertion by suggesting that it's action 'did not and does not prevent employees from forwarding dues payments directly to the defendant or maintaining active union membership.'

"In fact," Lisi wrote, "this is precisely the situation that the Guild is trying to change, and a stay in these circumstances would merely perpetuate pending appeal a system that the Guild argues prevents it from acting as the collective bargaining representative of Journal employees.''