Glenn Levar and STHRM, Inc. HR ENewsletter
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"The lesson is clear: we must build trust in order to get people to work
together, to row in the same direction, and to help one another to achieve organizational
and individual goals."
Developing Trust in Organizations
Dr. Joseph P. Cangemi
Dr. Casimir J. Kowalski
Dr. Richard L. Miller
Mr. Thomas W. Hollopeter
First National Ordered To Pay For Violations
Delta, Pilots Union Chief Reach Tentative Agreement
Machinists OK 3 Year Deal With Lockheed
Judge Denies GM Request To Dismiss Lawsuit
Steelworkers Sue Alcoa Over Retiree Health Coverage Cutbacks
Supreme Court Tackles Employee Harassment
EEOC Settles Lawsuit On Behalf of Hispanic Employees Allegedly Denied Promotions
To Management Jobs
OPW Fueling Components V. National Labor Relations Board
Edgar V. Jac Products, Inc.
Cottrill V. MFA, Inc.
Jespersen V. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc.
Labor
FIRST NAT'L ORDERED TO PAY FOR VIOLATIONS
First National Lending Corp. of Middleburg Heights has been ordered
to pay more than $186,000 for minimum wage and overtime pay violations.
The fine was levied by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, which said loan officers were paid only on a commission basis and in some weeks did not make the state’s minimum wage. The alleged violations, which affected 70 employees at the mortgage lender, occurred from December 2001 through December 2004.
First National had contended that the loan officers were engaged in “outside sales” and thus were exempt from federal laws governing minimum wage pay, according to a news release from the U.S. Department of Labor. U.S. Federal Court Judge Donald C. Nugent disagreed and ordered First National to pay the workers back wages, with interest and damages.
Company president Lisa Scherzer did not immediately return a call for comment
Tuesday afternoon. Shawn A. Turner April 11, 2006
Crain’s Cleveland Business
DELTA, PILOTS UNION REACH TENTATIVE AGREEMENT
Delta Air Lines Inc. and negotiators for its pilots union reached a tentative agreement Friday on pay and benefit cuts that could avert a strike at the United States' third largest carrier and ease uncertainty among travelers over the busy Easter weekend.
No details of the agreement were released. The deal would be subject to ratification by the airline's 5,930 pilots.
The pilots union had threatened to strike if its contract was thrown out. Delta, which has been operating under bankruptcy protection since September, has said in court papers that a pilot strike would put it out of business.
An arbitration panel had until Saturday to reach a decision on Delta's request to throw out its pilot contract so it could impose up to $325 million (€268.73 million) in annual pay and benefit cuts. That decision is now on hold with the tentative agreement, but it could resurface if the rank-and-file pilots reject the agreement.
"I'm very pleased the parties have reached a tentative agreement," the panel chairman, Richard Bloch, told The Associated Press.
He declined to comment further, referring questions to the parties.
In a statement, Delta said the deal also is subject to bankruptcy court approval, but the airline believes passengers can book with confidence.
"We have worked hard together as a team to forge an agreement that is
good for Delta and all of its constituents," said Delta's chief financial
officer, Ed Bastian. Harry R. Weber AP Business Writer April 14, 2006
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/04-14-2006/b60a00034c12aeae.html
back to top
MACHINISTS OK 3-YR. DEAL WITH LOCKHEED
Union workers at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. accepted a new contract with higher wages and a limited increase in employee contributions to health care costs.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 776 approved the three-year deal Sunday with 82.5 percent of those present voting in favor, according to a union statement. The 3,700 union members build F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets at the Fort Worth plant.
Lockheed officials said in a statement that the contract is "fair and equitable."
"The proposal was the result of good faith negotiations between the company and the union bargaining committees," Lockheed spokesman Joe Stout said.
Local 776 President Pat Lane was unavailable for comment to The Associated Press on Monday, but he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Dallas Morning News for their Monday editions that the work schedule proved to be a point of contention. Lockheed was calling for a 9-80 work schedule under which employees would work nine days and 80 hours every two weeks, with overtime paid after the 80th hour.
Employees were opposed to the schedule, Lane said, and Lockheed agreed to maintain its current five-day, 40-hour work schedule. Employees will still receive overtime pay after eight hours daily and 40 hours in a week.
The deal included a $2,000 bonus for union members. It also includes wage increases of 4 percent this year and 3 percent in each of the next two years, including an increase in the minimum hourly rate for new employees.
Under the deal, employees will pay a larger share of insurance premiums for health care, but the out-of-pocket expenses are capped. AP FindLaw.com April 10, 2006
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/66/04-10-2006/d68d000cf1c9e5ac.html
back to top
Benefits
JUDGE DENIES GM REQUEST TO DISMISS LAWSUIT
A federal judge denied a motion by General Motors Corp. to dismiss a lawsuit that claims company officials who oversee employees' retirement funds failed to act responsibly, attorneys for the plaintiffs said Friday.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for Michigan, claims that GM and the managers of its two retirement funds ignored the company's financial woes, causing employee investors to suffer huge losses.
The case involves two GM plans - a personal savings plan for hourly employees, and a stock-purchase program for salaried employees - both of which, plaintiffs said, hold large amounts of GM stock.
Plaintiffs' attorneys said Judge Nancy Edmonds stated in her ruling that GM had a duty to convey to its retirement plan members complete and accurate information about its true financial health - something the suit claims the automaker failed to do.
The suit also claims that GM put its own interests above those of its employees by continuing to offer its stock as an investment option when, the plaintiffs say, it was clearly not a sound investment.
"It is our belief that GM and the investment fund committee sold out GM employees, plain and simple," said Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "They stood motionless and mute while the stock's slide devastated the retirement savings of thousands."
Representatives for GM could not immediately be reached for comment. AP FindLaw.com April 10, 2006
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/f/66/04-07-2006/0ea2000b1d87056b.html
back to top
STEELWORKERS SUE ALCOA OVER RETIREE HEALTH COVERAGE CUTBACKS
The United Steelworkers of America (USW) has sued Alcoa, Inc., over the aluminum giant’s planned cutbacks in some retiree health care coverage.
The suit, filed in US District Court in Knoxville, Tennessee, seeks damages for affected retirees and their families over the company's plan to implement a retiree benefit cap in January that would limit its spending on retirees' medical benefits at 2006 expenditures and divide any additional costs among the retirees, the Pittsburgh Business Journal reported.
The proposed class-action suit was filed on behalf of Alcoa and former Reynolds Food Packaging master contract location retirees.
"Alcoa has a contractual obligation to continue providing agreed upon health care benefits to retirees and their families who have given their work lives to building this company into the world's premier aluminum producer," said Jim Robinson, who serves as the USW's chief negotiator with Alcoa.
Alcoa spokesman Kevin Lowery could not immediately be reached for comment, but CEO Alain Belda, in a conference call late Monday following the release of the company's first-quarter earnings, said he is conscious of the cost of not getting union workers to pay a larger share of their health-care costs. BenefitsLink.com April 12, 2006 PLANSPONSOR.com
http://www.plansponsor.com/pi_type10/?RECORD_ID=33022
back to top
Discrimination
SUPREME COURT TACKLES EMPLOYEE HARASSMENT
While bans on sexual harassment and discrimination are posted in many employers' policies these days, just how much on-the-job protection is owed workers after they step up to make charges of bad behavior?
A Supreme Court case set for oral arguments Monday will shed new light on that question. The central issue in the case, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway v. Sheila White, will examine how much latitude employers have, after an employee complains about sexual harassment or race, religious or sex discrimination, to make transfers or changes in the employee's job duties without being subject to charges of retaliation.
The case comes amid a rising tide of retaliation complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The decision not only has implications for how such claims may be handled in the future, but also for women's progress in nontraditional occupations.
Ms. White is a former Burlington Northern forklift operator who complained in 1997 that her foreman was sexually harassing her. The foreman was suspended after an investigation. On the same day, however, Ms. White's job duties were changed. While her classification as a track laborer stayed the same, she was taken off the forklift and assigned to dirtier track work that included working on her knees on the ground. After Ms. White filed charges with the EEOC, a supervisor suspended her from her job for five weeks for insubordination, but the company reinstated her with back pay after she filed a grievance with her union.
Ms. White's attorneys contend that both the change in job duties and the suspension were illegal retaliation. Burlington Northern's attorneys cite other reasons for the reassignment: An internal investigation of her sexual-harassment complaint revealed other employees thought her forklift assignment was unfair and should go to someone with more seniority, they say. Burlington, a unit of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., also defends Ms. White's suspension, saying it was resolved properly and she suffered no material harm. A federal district court jury in Memphis, Tenn., awarded Ms. White $43,000 in compensatory damages. The company appealed the case to the Supreme Court after a divided federal appeals court in Cincinnati found largely for Ms. White. (Appeals courts across the country have differed over what constitutes retaliation.) Sue Shellenbarger The Wall Street Journal Online April 14, 2006
http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workfamily/20060414-workfamily.html?cjcontent=mail
back to top
EEOC SETTLES LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF HISPANIC EMPLOYEES ALLEGEDLY DENIED PROMOTIONS TO MANAGEMENT JOBS
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has settled its national origin discrimination lawsuit against the successor of U S WEST Communications, Qwest Communications International Inc., for $400,000. The EEOC achieved the settlement on behalf of a group of Hispanic employees who the EEOC alleged were denied promotions to management jobs at company's Portland, Oregon, facilities from 1998 through 2001. The company has denied these allegations.
The company agreed to a two-year consent decree in which it agreed to pay the group $400,000. Qwest will maintain its annual employment discrimination training and continue to provide training to hiring managers in Portland, Oregon. It will provide annual reports to the EEOC for the duration of the decree.
“We are committed to fighting discrimination in all its forms and in every jurisdiction. This settlement represents a fair and equitable resolution of the disputed issues in the case,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo.
"Employers cannot make promotion decisions that discriminate on the basis of national origin,” said EEOC San Francisco District Office Director Joan Ehrlich. “Employers should not only avoid discrimination, but should find ways to build on the assets diversity brings.”
Qwest's Oregon president Judy Peppler said, “Valuing diversity and treating fellow Qwest team members with respect and trust have long been and remain central to our corporate values.”
Qwest Communications (NYSE: Q) has headquarters in Denver, Colorado, maintains a broadband network that serves 14 western and mid-western states, and employs nearly 40,000 people, according to the company’s web site www.qwest.com. Qwest acquired U S WEST Communications Inc. in June 2000. April 13, 2006
www.eeoc
back to top
Recent Court Cases
OPW FUELING COMPONENTS V. NAT'L LABOR RELATIONS BD. (04/06/06
- NO. 04-2563, 05-1083)
Petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board determining
that petitioner-employer's discharge of a former employee was in violation of
the National Labor Relations Act is affirmed where: 1) the employee's conduct
was a "protected activity" under the Act; 2) petitioner terminated
him on the basis of an improper motivation; and 3) union was threatened by petitioner
during a meeting. April 9, 2006 FindLaw.com
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/042563p.pdf
back to top
EDGAR V. JAC PRODS., INC. (04/06/06 - NO. 05-1193)
Summary judgment for defendant-employer in an action alleging violation of the
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is affirmed where the district court properly
concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the FMLA because she
was unable to return to work after a 12-week period of statutory leave had ended.
April 9, 2006 FindLaw.com
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/051193p.pdf
back to top
COTTRILL V. MFA, INC. (04/07/06 - NO. 05-1748)
Summary judgment to defendant-employer in a suit alleging sex discrimination
in violation of Title VII arising from a supervisor's use of a bathroom peephole
is affirmed where the district court did not err in dismissing disparate treatment
claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and plaintiffs failed
to establish their prima facie claims of hostile work environment. April 9,
2006 FindLaw.com
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/051748p.pdf
back to top
JESPERSEN V. HARRAH'S OPERATING CO., INC. (04/14/06 - NO.
03-15045)
Summary judgment to an employer on Title VII sex discrimination claims brought
by an employee who was terminated for failing to comply with a workplace makeup
requirement is affirmed since, although appearance standards such as makeup
requirements may well be the subject of a Title VII claim for sexual stereotyping,
plaintiff failed to create any triable issue of fact that the challenged policy
was part of a policy motivated by sex stereotyping. April 14, 2006 FindLaw.com
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0315045p.pdf
back to top