|
 |
|
1/3/2014 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!
HELL YA! 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 Year’s Eve, December 31, 2013, The
United States Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. ruled the
following: The Union’s motion for summary judgment will be granted
and that of Alcoa will be denied. The Union’s 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! In Solidarity, Don Mohn – President, UAW Local 1050 |
