Providence Newspaper Guild - Guild Leader November 15, 2001

Overtime parking:
Travel of the case

· February, 1998. The company begins turning away purchasers of $3.50 coupons to its Parkade parking garage, behind the Biltmore Hotel, when the garage is "full," something that is happening frequently because of the downtown parking shortage. Those with monthly parking passes still can get in. But no new monthly passes are offered.

· March 11, 1998. The Guild files a grievance, asking that the Journal provide parking for all purchasers of daily passes and to reimburse them for money lost by having to park elsewhere.

· May, 1998. The company continues to sell the coupons, but stamps them "subject to availability."

· Nov. 3, 1999. A hearing is held before arbitrator Tim Bornstein. The parties decide on a two-pronged approach: one hearing to decide whether the company violated the contract; another to decide a remedy.

· Nov. 18, 1999. The Journal outlines its company-wide proposal for "free" parking and bus benefits on a "non-contractual'' basis that can be changed or eliminated at any time by the company. At the bargaining table, the company demands Guild drop existing parking sections.

· Dec. 20, 1999. New parking program will begin Jan. 1, company says, but not for Guild.

· Dec. 27, 1999. Arbitrator Bornstein rules that the Journal violated the contract, and that the right to use coupons to park is implied in the right to purchase them.

· Jan. 1, 2000. The Journal unilaterally eliminates parking language from contract.

· Jan. 17, 2000. The Guild and the Journal discuss how much a remedy should be. No agreement is reached.

· Feb. 16, 2000. Company files in U.S. District Court to throw out the parking arbitration award.

· June 14, 2000. Federal Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lovegreen hears arguments in the case.

· July 25, 2000. Magistrate Lovegreen recommends that the arbitration decision be upheld, and a federal judge agrees. The company later appeals that ruling.

· July 31, 2000. Arbitrator Bornstein recesses remedy hearing when company says it knows how many coupons it sold but won't tell the Guild the results.

· Dec. 20, 2000. The National Labor Relations Board issues more than 20 unfair labor practices complaints, including one that the company illegally changed parking benefits as of Jan. 1, 2000. A hearing is scheduled Feb. 25, 2002.

· Nov. 9, 2001. First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rules against the company, saying Lovegreen was correct to uphold arbitrator's parking award.

A three-judge federal Court of Appeals has spurned the company's latest attempt to duck an arbitration award - this one saying that the paper wrongly denied workers discount parking in its Parkade garage.

The seven-page decision written by Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella, upholds a lower court's "summary judgment" ordering the company to abide by the arbitration award.

Issued Nov. 9, the court decision could be appealed by the Journal to the U.S. Supreme Court. But union lawyers believe the high court would be unlikely to consider the case.

The ruling thus appears to clear the way for a hearing before Arbitrator Tim Bornstein to determine a remedy. The Guild wants eligible workers to be able to resume subsidized parking and to receive back pay for the money they've shelled out for parking elsewhere.

Parking has been one of the most aggravating issues in the current contract negotiations.

Lack of affordable, nearby parking makes it hard for Guild members to do their work, raises security issues for night workers to go safely to and from the Journal Building and is costing union members substantial money.

The extreme length of this case - 3 years and 7 months since the Guild filed its 1998 grievance - also underscores the company's strategy in handling contract disputes.

In numerous cases, it has dragged out the process, taking some "binding arbitration" matters to court, as it has done in the parking matter.

Only a week prior to the Appeals Court decision, U.S. District Court Judge Mary M. Lisi turned down the company's request for a delay in an arbitration case about union dues and membership, while it appeals an earlier ruling.

The Guild believes the company has two motives in taking this approach:

· It is trying to slow down the process as much as possible, hoping to discourage the union and its members, a "justice-delayed, justice-denied" tactic.

· Its strategy also is designed to drain the Guild's treasury with legal fees. The Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America, the local's parent union, is picking up the cost. In the company's case, even while Belo Corp. has been laying off and buying out workers, plus freezing salaries nationwide, it continues to squander money on questionable legal moves.

The company is obligated to offer discount parking to eligible workers, and the Guild's legal arguments three times have been ruled valid.

"Because we conclude that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is plausible, we affirm the district court's decision to grant summary judgment for the Guild," Torruella wrote.

The company's argument has been that the contract only gives people the right to buy parking passes, but not to use the coupons to park their cars.

The contract says: "Employees who work fewer than five (5) days per week shall be eligible to purchase per diem parking passes from the Parkade Parking Garage at not more than four dollars ($4.00) per day."

In the Appeals Court's words, the company argued that "the agreement does not guarantee employees the right to park, but only the right to purchase discount parking passes."

The argument is not "plausible," the judges said.

"Plain language would seem to dictate that a parking pass entitles one to actually park," the judges said.

They also said the arbitrator was right to note how the contract had worked in the past: that for four years prior to 1998, workers who bought the coupons did park in the garage.