43
GM workers’ lawsuit dismissed
YOUNGSTOWN
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by 28 General Motors Lordstown workers whose pay was significantly reduced in 2008, and the employees and their lawyer still are considering whether to appeal.
The lawsuit, filed in 2011 against GM and the United Auto Workers International Union and Local 1112, sought $3 million in back pay.
The union had asked for a summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit based on two factors: The complaints were not filed within the statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs had not exhausted their internal appeals process.
U.S. District Judge Benita Y. Pearson, however, denied those claims and allowed the suit to go forward. There was a hearing in September.
In dismissing the case recently without a trial, Judge Pearson ruled that GM paid the employees in accordance with the union contract and that the plaintiffs failed to show the union breached its duty to represent them.
“The court concludes none of the plaintiff’s claims has merit,” Judge Pearson wrote in her 46-page decision.
The employees lost their jobs due to GM’s financial woes in 2007 and were rehired early in 2008 at their previous wage levels.
Two months later, they were reclassified as entry-level employees, and their wages were cut in the company’s transition to a lower wage tier for new employees under the collective-bargaining agreement.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Ken Myers of Independence, said GM should have applied the new classification to new employees, not current workers, such as the 28 in the complaint.
But, in the September hearing, GM’s lawyer, Johanna Parker, said the employees’ current positions were no longer relevant and they were properly classified as new employees under the new wage-tier system.
Parker could not be reached for comment Thursday concerning the dismissal.
Mark Dragomier of Lordstown, the lead plaintiff, said the new system reduced the workers’ pay from $24 to $26 an hour to $14 an hour.
The employees accused their union of violating its duty to represent them by not filing a grievance on their behalf, but the UAW local’s lawyer, Charles Oldfield, argued the union has broad discretion over what grievances to file.
Myers said he and his clients will decide after they meet in about a week whether to appeal Judge Pearson’s decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Cincinnati.
“I’m disappointed. These cases are very difficult because we have to not only prove that there was a violation of the collective-bargaining agreement, but also that the union failed in its duty to represent its members,” Myers said.
“I also felt that we had enough evidence on both of those points to go to trial,” he added.
“It’s bittersweet for us because they’re our members. We represent them like we do every other member, and, at the same time, it’s been a long struggle going through the process” in court, said Glenn Johnson, Local 1112 president.
“Although we’re pleased with the results, we want our members — and encourage our members — to exhaust every avenue if they feel that they have been treated unjustly,” he added.
Johnson declined to comment, however, on why the union didn’t file a grievance on behalf of the 28 workers, saying he was vice president, not president, of the local in 2007-08.
“All through the process, we felt that we have done the right things by these members, and, obviously, the judge has agreed that we were in no way at fault in any of this,” Johnson said.