Local 111 Member Wins Arbitration Award
On May 16, 2005, BCTGM Local 111 (Dallas) member Loretta Robison finally received the news that she had been waiting nearly two years for: that her grievance against Sara Lee had been sustained and that she would receive 96 weeks of back pay and benefits.
In August 2002, Robison, a machine operator with an unblemished 28 years of experience at Sara Lee’s Paris, Texas facility, took medical leave for a work-related injury. After approximately an eight month layoff, she was cleared by her Workers Compensation (WC) nurse to return to work on restricted duty. According to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) Opinion and Award, Robison contacted Sara Lee regularly over the next four months in an attempt to secure light-duty work, only to be denied on each occasion. A year after her medical leave began, she was terminated by the company. BCTGM Local 111 then took the case to arbitration.
According to Arbitrator S.J. William’s findings, the “actions of the HR Manager clearly prevented this 28-year employee from returning to work and then used this fact against her in order to justify terminating her for being on medical leave for longer than 12 months.” Williams also wrote that the “Grievant’s termination was arbitrary and unreasonable.”
According to BCTGM International President Frank Hurt, it is up to unions to protect those workers who companies unilaterally deem expendable. “It is unconscionable that a senior employee with an impeccable record was treated this way after getting hurt at work,” notes Hurt. “It is our responsibility to right these wrongs.”
Robison was awarded 96 weeks of back pay, accumulated seniority, restoration of full benefits, and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Local 531 Wins Arbitration
On August 28, 2003, Local 531, London, KY, won an important decision when Arbitrator Lawrence Oberdank found that the Sara Lee Bakery Group violated the collective agreement by removing three “spotter” jobs from the bargaining unit. Arbitrator Oberdank directed the Company to return the jobs to the bargaining unit, fill them as prescribed, and pay the Union the dues lost while the three positions were vacant.
The problem began after the Company ignored the National Labor Relations Boards determination that the “spotter” position should be part of the bargaining unit for the May 2001 recognition election. After negotiating a first contract in February 2002, which included the “spotters”, the Company unilaterally outsourced the “spotters” position without negotiating with the Union, as required by federal labor law. The Union immediately grieved the decision. The August decision by Arbitrator Oberdank is a testament to the strength of a collective agreement in protecting workers rights and employment.
Sara Lee Attacks “Lead Person” Position
During the last five years, Sara Lee has methodically attempted to eliminate the “lead person” position from BCTGM bargaining units, and transfer that work to supervisors.
Local 235 in Springfiled, MO fought the company's move and successfully argued before an arbitrator that supervisors were now performing bargaining unit work, which was specifically prohibited under the contract. The arbitrator did not accept the company's argument that they had this right under the “Management Rights” clause, and forced them to reinstate the position. (Case FMCS No. 06141-7)
In another case, Sara Lee attempted to keep the “lead person” position out of a possible bargaining unit when Local 611 (Fort Payne, AL) was organizing the plant's clerical, and quality control employees. The NLRB's Region 10 Director ruled that the lead persons in both the clerical unit, and the QA unit, were indeed part of the bargaining unit. The Director found that the lead persons did not have supervisory functions as outlined by the Supreme Court, and thus, were not to be considered supervisors. (Case 10-RC-15315).
A similar finding was reached by NLRB Region 16, which ruled that lead persons within the QA department in the Paris, TX facility, were not supervisors and were part of the appropriate bargaining unit. (Case No. 16-RC-10423)
The company's attempt to eliminate this key position is based more on anti-union animus than it is on sound business practices. By eliminating the lead person position, it appears the company hopes to tighten their control over the production process, erode the BCTGM bargaining unit, put union-busters on the shop floor, and have a trained supervisor staff to maintain production during a work stoppage.
The BCTGM has been successful, both in negotiations, and in the courts, in keeping the company from eliminating the lead person position but this can only be maintained through vigilant oversight.
Sara Lee Attacks Retiree Health Insurance
Across the country, Sara Lee/Earthgrains has attempted to unilaterally impose co-payments on retiree's health benefits. When it has been unsuccessful doing this, they have attempted to reduce the actual benefits themselves that retirees are legally entitled to under current collective bargaining agreements.
Why attack the benefits of the hard-working employees who helped make the company successful? That's what workers in Fort Payne, AL, Springfield, MO and Owensboro, KY want to know. In all three locations, Sara Lee/Earthgrains attempted to either shift insurance costs onto retirees, or decrease their actual coverage.
In 2002, the company attempted to force retirees from the Earthgrains Owensboro, KY facility to pay a portion of the premiums on their health insurance that they had not previously been responsible for. In Federal Court, Local 280 was successful in obtaining an injunction against the company, proving that the retirees would be irreparably harmed, and that the Local would successful if the issue were to go to trial. (Calvin Kasinger, et al vs Colonial Bakery Earthgrains) Local 280 was also successful in obtaining an injunction in 2003 when Sara Lee unilaterally made negative changes to the Retiree Medical Plan. Again, the Local was able to show the court that, not only did the company violate the collective agreement by its unilateral action against the retirees in Owensboro, but if the case went to court, the Union was going to win. (James Hudnall et al vs Sara Lee Bakery Group)
In both cases, the courts agreed that the company could not make changes to retiree health insurance without bargaining with the union.
In a series of similar cases, the BCTGM successfully argued in arbitration that the company was violating the collective agreements by unilaterally instituting changes in benefits. Local 611, in Fort Payne, AL, was successful on two fronts: fending off Earthgrains' efforts to make unilateral changes to the eligibility rules for the employee health and dental plans (Case No. 01-13959); and rebuffing an attempt by the company to make changes in retiree health insurance without negotiating with the union. (Case No. 02-14498). In both cases, the aribrators ruled in favor of the union and all affected employees or retirees were made whole.
At the same time, the company denied health benefit coverage to newly retired members for the first two months of retirement, as stipulated under the collective agreement. In fact, during the previous round of negotiations, Local 235 had negotiated language that specifically covered ensured workers 60 days of health benefit coverage upon retirement. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the union (Case No. 01-07518), and even acknowledged in her opinion that the Human Resource Manager had received instructions from “a higher authority” to take a contrary position to that of the union.
Got
a SaraLee/Earthgrains
story to tell?
Email us!
justicesaralee@bctgm.org
