October 11, 2004
Re: RIF Arbitration Award
Today I received the award on the May 2003 reduction in force arbitration. To put it lightly, I am in utter disbelief regarding the decision of the arbitrator and the board to rule in favor of the company on this matter. The facts and evidence in this case obviously do not support the final award; in fact, after reading the award it seems that the evidence and testimony that we presented were not considered.
Based on the contract language, the evidence and testimony of Ed Koziatek, Jim Little, Robert Van De Loo, Keith Stewart, Stan Crosser and the two company R.I.F. administrators, the juniority list should have been downsized proportional to those who did not elect to bump the system and chose to downgrade in Tulsa.
This award can not be reconciled with the terms of the contract or the evidence and testimony presented at the arbitration. The arbitrator and the board made statements such as:
“The local 565 and 567 method is also obviously plausible because it was at least used some of the time by the parties to administer RIF’s since 1994. It is also plausible because it was one of the methods the parties at one point during the May 2003 RIF decided to use. The question isn’t however whether this method is plausible, but whether it is contractually mandated. The boards majority disagrees.â€
The union proved there was a reduction of the Juniority list on at least the last ten-plus RIFs since 1994. Mr. Koziatek and Mr. Little testified that that was the intent of the contract language all along. However, the board chose to ignore this testimony and evidence. They essentially said the company did not violate the contract, but the RIF practice of shrinking the Juniority list to the least senior is OK for the future since there was a verbal agreement. Talk about getting your cake and eating it too.
The board also made the statement: “In this case the local unions were split in their preference and it put Mr. Little of the International Union in an impossible position. He could not guarantee grievances wouldn’t be filed either way.†This contradicts Mr. Little’s testimony that he told the company they should reduced the list even further and he objected to the process and was under the impression that the company was going to correct the RIF.
When asked if Jim Little objected to the process the company used he stated, “absolutelyâ€.
And then when asked:†And you expect the award of this grievance to make whole all of your members rights who were violated and the application be utilized in all future RIF’s†he answered “Yeah. Because what we don’t want to see-- is we didn’t want to see more junior people working with senior people being RIF’d. That was never the intent of any reduction in forceâ€
The bottom line is this decision is a travesty to the members affected and the arbitration process. Our attorneys are currently reviewing the facts of the case. They will then make a determination as to whether or not it would be beneficial for us to file a federal lawsuit to vacate the decision.
I will continue to keep you updated on this matter. Again, I am deeply disappointed by the decision and will exhaust all avenues available.
Fraternally,
Donald M. Videtich
President
TWU Local 565
Re: RIF Arbitration Award
Today I received the award on the May 2003 reduction in force arbitration. To put it lightly, I am in utter disbelief regarding the decision of the arbitrator and the board to rule in favor of the company on this matter. The facts and evidence in this case obviously do not support the final award; in fact, after reading the award it seems that the evidence and testimony that we presented were not considered.
Based on the contract language, the evidence and testimony of Ed Koziatek, Jim Little, Robert Van De Loo, Keith Stewart, Stan Crosser and the two company R.I.F. administrators, the juniority list should have been downsized proportional to those who did not elect to bump the system and chose to downgrade in Tulsa.
This award can not be reconciled with the terms of the contract or the evidence and testimony presented at the arbitration. The arbitrator and the board made statements such as:
“The local 565 and 567 method is also obviously plausible because it was at least used some of the time by the parties to administer RIF’s since 1994. It is also plausible because it was one of the methods the parties at one point during the May 2003 RIF decided to use. The question isn’t however whether this method is plausible, but whether it is contractually mandated. The boards majority disagrees.â€
The union proved there was a reduction of the Juniority list on at least the last ten-plus RIFs since 1994. Mr. Koziatek and Mr. Little testified that that was the intent of the contract language all along. However, the board chose to ignore this testimony and evidence. They essentially said the company did not violate the contract, but the RIF practice of shrinking the Juniority list to the least senior is OK for the future since there was a verbal agreement. Talk about getting your cake and eating it too.
The board also made the statement: “In this case the local unions were split in their preference and it put Mr. Little of the International Union in an impossible position. He could not guarantee grievances wouldn’t be filed either way.†This contradicts Mr. Little’s testimony that he told the company they should reduced the list even further and he objected to the process and was under the impression that the company was going to correct the RIF.
When asked if Jim Little objected to the process the company used he stated, “absolutelyâ€.
And then when asked:†And you expect the award of this grievance to make whole all of your members rights who were violated and the application be utilized in all future RIF’s†he answered “Yeah. Because what we don’t want to see-- is we didn’t want to see more junior people working with senior people being RIF’d. That was never the intent of any reduction in forceâ€
The bottom line is this decision is a travesty to the members affected and the arbitration process. Our attorneys are currently reviewing the facts of the case. They will then make a determination as to whether or not it would be beneficial for us to file a federal lawsuit to vacate the decision.
I will continue to keep you updated on this matter. Again, I am deeply disappointed by the decision and will exhaust all avenues available.
Fraternally,
Donald M. Videtich
President
TWU Local 565
