43
Judge plans to rule soon on workers’ wage lawsuit against GM, UAW
By Jordan Cohen
YOUNGSTOWN
U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson says she plans to rule “as soon as reasonably possible” after listening to more than three hours of arguments Friday on a lawsuit filed against General Motors, United Auto Workers Local 1112 and the UAW International Union.
The litigation was brought by 28 Lordstown workers whose pay was significantly cut in 2008.
Attorney Ken Myers of Independence, who represents the 28, said he thinks the ruling could come in the next 30 to 60 days.
The lawsuit, filed in 2011, asks the court to rule that GM violated the collective bargaining agreement by threatening their jobs if they did not reclassify their positions as entry level and accept lower pay. They also have accused their union of violating its representation responsibilities by failing to file a grievance on their behalf. The workers are asking for $3 million in back pay.
“We went from $24 to $26 an hour down to $14 an hour,” Mark Dragomier of Lordstown told The Vindicator. Dragomier is the principal plaintiff in the case.
The employees, who lost their jobs during GM’s financial struggles in 2007, were rehired in early 2008 at their previous wage levels. They say two months later they were given no alternative but to reclassify as entry level when the company transitioned into a lower wage tier for new employees as part of the collective bargaining agreement.
Myers said GM should have applied the classification to new employees and not existing ones like the 28.
“There were no other [existing] employees that we know that have been subjected to the lower level anywhere in GM,” he told the court. “They were the first and they were the last.”
Johanna Parker, an attorney representing GM, argued that under the agreement, the employees’ existing positions in Lordstown were no longer relevant. “They were new because it was the start of a new system,” she said.
Charles Oldfield, the attorney for the UAW local, argued the decision against filing a grievance did not represent a failure to properly represent the workers. He noted that Ben Strickland, the shop chairman, had attempted to get the issue resolved for their benefit but was unsuccessful.
“He did everything he could do except file the grievance,” Oldfield said. “The union has broad discretion on what grievances to pursue.”
The attorney, in response to a question from the judge, said Local 1112 averages 900 grievances a year, which led Myers to wonder why the request for a grievance by his client was rejected when so many are not.
“There is no evidence of fraud and deceit [on the part of the local],” Oldfield said. “It’s not this court’s job to Monday morning quarterback the union.”
“I’m still at a loss at what the International did wrong,” said Joyce Goldstein, the International’s attorney. “The International doesn’t file grievances; the local does.”
At one point Judge Pearson questioned what the response might be from the employees should she rule against GM but in favor of the local and International. The automaker’s attorney declined to comment afterward while Myers cautioned that the remark should not be considered an indication of how the judge will rule.
“I don’t think you should infer anything from that question,” the attorney said.