HOME

ABOUT THE GUILD

NEWSLETTERS

PJ CONTRACT

WORCESTER
CONTRACT

LOCAL BYLAWS

GUILD ACTIVITIES

RELATED SITES

E-MAIL THE GUILD

GUILD LEADER

---

Vol XI, No. 59

TNG/CWA Local 31041

August 1, 2000

---

GUILD SCORES KEY ROUND IN 'POOR LOSER' COURT CASE

U.S. MAGISTRATE SUPPORTS GUILD'S WIN
IN 1998 PARKING ARBITRATION CASE

FAULTS PROJO ARGUMENT
THAT DISCOUNT PARKING COUPONS
DID NOT GUARANTEE A PLACE TO PARK

COMPANY, MEANWHILE, CONTINUES FOOT-DRAGGING
ON THE STILL-OPEN PARKING ARBITRATION CASE

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."