US Appeals Court
acknowledges UAW lied to Toledo Jeep workers
By
Shannon Jones
30 March 2018
In a ruling March 21 the United States Court of Appeals Sixth
Circuit acknowledged that the United Auto Workers (UAW) had denied due process
to a group of workers at Fiat Chrysler’s Jeep complex in Toledo, Ohio involved
in a lawsuit over the squelching of their grievance. The suit was brought by a
group of former temporary part time (TPT) workers at the Jeep complex who
asserted that they were denied seniority and other rights by management and the
UAW.
The case further demonstrates the reactionary role played by the
unions and indeed the whole system of US labor relations in denying workers
their elementary rights, even those supposedly protected by contract
agreements.
The court asserted, in opposition to the claims of the UAW to the
contrary, that the union constitution permits the reinstatement in certain
cases of grievances even after they are withdrawn. In the case, Slight vs UAWLocal 12, workers are
seeking the raising of their pay to Tier I level and back pay. The workers saw
their pay slashed from Tier I to the substantially lower Tier II level when
they were converted to full-time status after a long delay in 2013. They also
lost all their accrued seniority amounting to six years per worker.
In a related case, former workers at the Toledo Jeep paint shop
filed a lawsuit against the UAW and FCA over their firing in 2012. The workers
claimed they were let go as part of a sweetheart deal to bring in lower paid
replacements, in fact the same former Jeep TPT workers involved in the Slight lawsuit.
The former TPT workers found themselves in a Kafkaesque position
after filing a grievance challenging the decision by management to hire them as
full time workers at the lower Tier II wage, instead of the higher Tier I wage
they were entitled to. The UAW quietly withdrew their grievance in January 2014
but did not tell the workers until October of the same year. When workers
protested, UAW officials told them that it was too late because the time limit
for filing such protests had elapsed. Instead, they were told if they wanted to
pursue their claims to file a lawsuit.
Workers then filed a lawsuit against both the UAW and management.
However, the UAW sought the dismissal of the case on the grounds that the
workers had not exhausted the appeals process within the framework of the UAW
collective bargaining agreement.
In oral arguments, Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey Sutton noted the
obvious absurdity of the attempt by the UAW and FCA management to argue that
workers had failed to exhaust the internal grievance process while at the same
time arguing that workers had no right to appeal the dismissal of their
grievance within the framework of the union.
“It doesn’t make the union look good,” Sutton noted. He added
incredulously, “You want to assert exhaustion but prevent them from exhausting?
How can they be time barred (from appealing) if they didn’t know about the
withdrawal (of the grievance)? ... That’s really a head scratcher.”
While noting the absurdity of the arguments advanced by the UAW
and FCA, the court granted the motion of the UAW and FCA for summary judgment
against the former TPT workers on the grounds that workers had not exhausted
the internal union appeal process. However, in an apparent concession to the
workers, the court kept open the possibility of them continuing their lawsuit
at a later date should their appeal through the union prove futile.
The court ruling noted that, contrary to the claims of the UAW,
the workers had the right under the UAW constitution to seek the reinstatement
of their grievance. In its ruling the court pointed out that under Article 33
of the constitution, workers are allowed to appeal the unfair dismissal of
grievances and that the International UAW President can waive time limits if
the situation demands. It further noted that under provisions of a letter of
agreement between the UAW and FCA a grievance could be reinstated if it is
found to have been improperly withdrawn by the union.
Commenting on the Court of Appeals decision, a worker familiar
with the lawsuit told the World
Socialist Web Site Autoworker Newsletter, “They (the UAW) look like
idiots. Their whole argument is that the workers didn’t exhaust the internal
union process. They were lied to.”
The worker noted, “The judge opened a Pandora’s box for the union.
If they allow the grievance to be reopened, everyone in the UAW who has been
denied will try to go back in with their grievances.”
In a separate motion, Toledo Jeep TPT workers had sought
reinstatement of their lawsuit on the grounds that revelations of rampant
corruption inside the UAW Chrysler department warranted a further examination
of their complaints. So far, three former UAW officials have been charged in relation
to receiving bribes from FCA executive Alphons Iacobelli as part of a scheme to
influence contract negotiations by keeping union leaders “fat, dumb and happy.”
The UAW international official directly responsible for squelching
the grievance by the Jeep TPT workers was Troy Davis, who served between 2014
and 2015 as vice president of the Making our Children Smile Foundation, a
dubious charity run by Norwood Jewell, former UAW vice president for Fiat
Chrysler.
In his plea deal, Iacobelli admitted making hundreds of thousands
of dollars in illegal payments to charities run by UAW officials, including the
Making Our Children Smile Foundation. While Jewell has not been charged, his
indictment seems likely given the rampant corruption so far uncovered in the
FCA department. He has reportedly retained the services of a prominent
white-collar crime attorney.
The lawsuit filed by the Toledo Jeep TPT workers further
demonstrates the reactionary role played by the unions in suppressing workers’
struggles. The appeals court ruling remanding workers to the mercies of the
internal UAW appeals process ensures further bureaucratic delays as union and
management collaborate to prevent workers from asserting their rights.
Kenneth Meyer, the attorney representing the Toledo Jeep TPT
workers, told the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter,
“At a certain point in the process the unions become the workers’ adversaries
rather than their supporters. The courts have been particularly harsh, telling
workers that even if the union lies to you, you have to go through their
process.”
He continued, “It is very difficult for an average autoworker or
steelworker to maneuver through the system.”
The role of the unions and indeed the whole collective bargaining
process in imposing a legal straitjacket on workers was spelled out frankly by
Shaun Richman, a former organizing director for the American Federation of
Teachers, in a recent article in the Washington
Post .
Richman writes, in relation to the Supreme Court case on so-called
agency fees, that while guaranteeing the dues income of the unions American
labor law “rewards employers with the far more
valuable guarantee of the right to direct the uninterrupted
work of the enterprise while union leadership has to tamp down rank-and-file gripes and discord for
the length of the contract.”
In other words, the job of the unions is to police the workforce
in the interests of enforcing management’s dictates. What Richman refers to at
one point as the “peculiar” system of labor-management relations in the US
amounts to little more than an unfettered management dictatorship in the
factories presided over by company unions.
Workers face the necessity of breaking with the unions and
building new, democratic, rank-and-file based organizations. These committees
should declare the contracts negotiated by the UAW null and void and launch a
fight for the reinstatement of all past concessions, including the elimination
of all tiers and the hiring of all TPTs as full-time workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment