facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

28 file $3M suit against GM, UAW



Published: Sun, May 1, 2011 @ 12:10 a.m.

Workers say union failed to stop violation of pact

By Jeanne Starmack

starmack@vindy.com

LORDSTOWN

Twenty-eight General Motors employees are suing GM, the United Auto Workers and UAW Local 1112, saying they should have higher pay and more seniority.

The workers contend the company violated the collective-bargaining agreement where they were concerned, and the union did nothing to stop it.

The suit was filed Saturday in U.S. District Court in Cleveland. The workers contend they tried to settle the dispute internally first but now must ask the court for relief.

They are asking for $3 million in back pay, which is the difference over the last three years between what they are making — $14 an hour — and what they say they should be making — $30 an hour, said their attorney, Ken Myers of Cleveland.

“Over several years, the company deprived these people of higher wages and seniority while the union stood by and did nothing,” Myers said.

GM representatives and UAW Local 1112 President Jim Graham, reached Saturday, said they have not seen the suit and could not comment on it.

However, Local 1112 Shop Chairman Ben Strickland, said, “As much as possible, we do take care of our members. The UAW definitely did their job, and everything was in place.” He would not elaborate.

The suit says the workers were hired as temporaries in October 2006. Their temporary status was extended a number of times, but the company failed to grant the proper approval to extend it, a violation of the contract, it says.

When a temporary employee is hired, he must either be laid off or hired permanently after his time is up, it contends. The union allowed the company to continually extend the temporary assignments rather than make them permanent, the suit says.

According to the suit, in April 2007, the plaintiffs were arbitrarily terminated while 22 temporary employees hired with them were retained.

After the plaintiffs were terminated, the company brought in nonunion employees, managers and contractors to do their jobs, the suit says.

The terminations and the use of nonunion employees were contract violations, but the union did not investigate or file a grievance, the suit says.

In November 2007, the plaintiffs were rehired and were supposed to be permanent employees with seniority for the time they served as temporaries, the suit says.

On June 13, 2008, they were called into the labor office at the Lordstown plant and forced to sign a document that re-categorized them as temporary employees, with June 12, 2008, as their seniority date, the complaint states.

They were told they had to sign the document or be immediately terminated, it says.

Most of the plaintiffs got pay cuts of more than 40 percent.

Myers said the plaintiffs were told their pay would go back up once the company hired a third shift.

A few days later, the union and company entered into an agreement called Special Employee Hiring Opportunities, under which former Delphi employees could be hired.

Those Delphi employees were allowed to “jump over” the plaintiffs to jobs with higher pay, a direct violation of the contract, the suit contends.

The union did not investigate, it says.

When permanent third-shift employees were hired in July 2008, the plaintiffs were not given the higher pay and seniority. Their wages were left at the lower level while other employees hired after them were given higher wages, the suit says.

The plaintiffs told the local union that they should not have had their wages and benefits reduced and that other employees who started after them should not have “bumped” them to fill permanent positions.

The union refused to file grievances, the suit says. The plaintiffs appealed that refusal through the international union’s Public Review Board, to no avail.

Myers said the board issued an opinion that the plaintiffs didn’t meet their burden of proof to show improper conduct on the local union’s part. The local has discretion on whether to file a grievance.

But, Myers said, he’s confident that under full discovery in the court process, he can prove the allegations.

The plaintiffs are asking for the back pay plus an order for GM to reinstate them to permanent positions with corresponding pay and benefits.


Comments

1timnoble(3 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

one secret is "Auto Insurance Clearance" doesn't spend much on splashy TV ads, but in large surveys, its customers say clearance auto insurance is terrific in every way -- low prices, helpful customer service and no hassles over claims

Suggest removal:

2UnionForever(1470 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

The union takes care of it's own - yea right! the union takes care of the union first and foremost.

Suggest removal:

3lee(544 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

Big union=big Govt! does anyone see any difference?

Suggest removal:

4MattMarzula(109 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

People hate the truth and don't like criticism. They think that things should be given to them automatically. By regulation, the Armed Forces are not allowed to have unions. Why? Nothing would get done. It disrupts the Chain of Command. In the military I have met several people who complain about deserving more pay and higher rank based of of their time in service. I basically tell them, "If you weren't such a piece of $hit, you would have gotten it already." So, to the guy who's sweeping bolts and the other ones who can't stand for more than 20 minutes a day, get a cigarette break every hour, and are making more money in better conditions than I ever have in some third world crap whole, "If you weren't such a piece of $hit, they would have given it to you already."

Suggest removal:

5commoncitizen(959 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

I bet the union still received the "dues" from the effected people.

Suggest removal:

6casper77(136 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

Maybe those people who were not hire were bad workers . They just kept them around because they were related to some big shot.

Suggest removal:

7saysithowitiz(98 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

Let's start cracking down on the real criminals......the temp agencies!

Suggest removal:

8Ucan2(8 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

I just recently got layed off from general motors after almost a year of service as a temp, the union did nothing to fight for us to become permanent, the excuse was that there were still permanent people still layed off from other plants that needed to be placed first. The language in the contract changes to suit the union and gm but never the workers who go in and work hard. I worked side by side with most of the people who filed the suit and i know first hand of all the details in the case and it is wrong that your doing the same job as someone across the line from you and your only getting half the pay for doing the same job. So i'm rallying behind them and hope that they win the suit.

Suggest removal:

9MattMarzula(109 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

I had a long drawn out rant to counter anything remotely supporting a union. But I didn't want it to bore or further entrench anyone's lofty opinions of a self destructive entity. So I'll limit my arguments to these few words. Youngstown Sheet and Tube and Stambaugh Thompson.

Suggest removal:

10ytown1(392 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

Almost took the words out of my mouth Matt,
How about Republic Steel, another fine example.

Suggest removal:

11SAVEOURCOUNTRY(467 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

Dam those CORPORATE THUGS!!!! long live the unions that made this country strong, proud and safe to work in. Save OHIO by voting Tuesday to overturn more CORPORATE THUGGISH legislation call SB5

Suggest removal:

12ytown1(392 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

Is the SB5 Repeal already on the ballot?
Yippee we get to Vote on keeping SB5 already.

saveourcounty, I think you need to go back and reread the article, this is the employees suing the Unions and GM?

Suggest removal:

13iBuck(208 comments)posted 3 years, 2 months ago

Looks like just another case of bodyshopping abuse. This time domestic instead of across borders.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport