Brothers and sisters of local 1050,
Today is one of the most awesome days in the history of the world!
It is with gracious pride and exhilaration that we inform you all of the fact that we finally once again won the decision of ripping our break and cleanup-up time away from us 3 years and 4 months ago!
On August 16, 2010, the Company changed our start and stop times and communicated that they would take away one of our three breaks as well as our long standing past practice of 15 minute wash-up time. On August 30, 2010, the company did unilaterally implement the change. The Union filed a grievance and ultimately sent the case to Arbitration. The case was heard with the International Union, the UAW Local 1050 Bargaining Committee and Alcoa, Inc. on Rockside Road in Independence, Ohio October 27, 2011. The case was answered by Arbitrator Stanley T. Dobry on August 14, 2012 right before contract negotiations. The company decided to appeal the arbitration decision to The United States District Court on September 2012.
The Arbitration decision essentially stated that the company earned productivity gains by taking the breaks and clean-up time away from us. In doing so, the company would have to share the financial gains and that both parties need to sit down and negotiate the financial gains that the company is entitled to compensate us for. Not only does the Arbitration decision talk about back pay form the time of the take way, it also reflects the going forward financial gain for the take away from the future.
On New Yearís Eve, December 31, 2013, The United States Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. ruled the following: The Unionís motion for summary judgment will be granted and that of Alcoa will be denied. The Unionís counterclaim will be granted in part insofar as it seeks to have Alcoa participate in the discussion ordered in the award, and denied in part as premature insofar as it seeks any retroactive interest.
The Company tried to appeal the decision of the Arbitrator claiming that he ruled outside of his jurisdiction. The company refused to sit down with the Union and come up with a financial settlement as the arbitration decision states. The Union argued that the Arbitrator did rule within his jurisdiction and his answer was mutually agreed to be binding of his decision. The Union tried to counter claim that the company owes us retroactive interest from the time the case was appealed in Federal Court by delaying the inevitable.
Where we are at now is that the International Union has requested to sit down with the company to negotiate a financial remedy and if not, the original Arbitrator has jurisdiction on the remedy should we not come to terms with the company. Stay Tuned!
Don Mohn Ė President, UAW Local 1050