As you know,
one of the many regrettable disputes we have had with your Guild leadership
had to do with an interpretation of a wage provision in the expired
collective bargaining agreement. After we had given 3.02% increases
to all employees for 1999, the Guild leadership took an incorrect
and literalistic interpretation of the gainsharing contract language,
demanding that we add an additional 1.02%.
We did our best
to negotiate this dispute, pointing out that among other things, the
question should be best resolved between the parties as part of overall
contract negotiations. As has unfortunately been their recent approach,
the Guild chose to litigate and went to arbitration for this extra
1.02%.
The Arbitrator
bought the literalistic argument made by the Guild and came down with
an incorrect arbitration award that missed the fundamental point that
companies and unions should negotiate wages and not attempt to get
increases through technical interpretations. We are more disappointed
by the fact that your leadership and administrator would bring this
claim. The contract said the Guild would get the same raise everyone
else received. You did. Your leaders saw a technical loophole and
exploited it in litigation. It is consistent with their short-term
view and their lack of a strategic plan to close on a contract.
Despite the fact
that we are convinced that the Arbitrator was wrong, we have decided
not to follow the Guild's approach and litigate this extra 1.02%.
We are therefore paying the 1.02% that resulted from this arbitration
award. With this letter is a check for retroactive a to you consistent
with the Arbitrator's award.
We would hope
that anyone with common sense would understand that litigating over
1.02% rather than engaging in meaningful negotiations is not in anyone's
best interests over the long-haul.
.
|
Sincerely,
Thomas J. McDonough /ph
A Belo Subsidiary
|