CBA - Layoff clause vs. closure clause

[malmshteen]

My worksite is up for sale, and will close permanently in 6 months if not sold.

The current CBA expires at the end of January, 2012. It has two related side notes. One pertains to layoffs, requiring the company give 90 days notice prior. The second pertains to total plant closure, and requires 6 months notice to represented employees prior to closure.

The company gave both notices in the same letter to the union (90 day layoff and 6 month closure). Effects bargaining begins next week.

Legally, are we entitled under the contract to 6 months salary, or only 90 days? The company has made statements that all employees would still be onsite and continue to receive salary, "at least through the end of the year." This sounds as though they believe the 90 day clause is correct.

I realize the effects bargaining could change things, but in general as things stand now, what is our position?

 

[cbg]

Since I have not read your CBA and any language that affects this situation, I have no idea.

 

[malmshteen]

PLANT CLOSURE

The Company will notify the Union in writing at least 6 months in advance of a complete plant closure that will involve personnel transfers or personnel layoff of bargaining unit employees.

The Company and Union will meet with 15 days after such written notice for the purpose of discussing the effect of such closure on bargaining unit employees and to negotiate appropriate conditions and benefits for the affected bargaining unit employees.

In the event parties are unable to arrive at a satisfactory agreement, either party shall have the right to serve a 60 day notice to terminate the collective bargaining agreement. The Union shall have the right to strike or the Company shall have the right to lockout at the end of the 60 day period unless a mutual agreement has been reached by the parties.

LAYOFF NOTIFICATION

In the event that the Company decides during the term of the Agreement to reduce the workforce by the layoff of employees on the payroll as of the date hereof, other than temporary or seasonal employees, Company will provide the Union with 90 days prior written notice of such layoff. Upon request, Company will meet with Union during said period on the question of possible benefits to ease the impact of the layoff on the employees to be laid off or to avert such layoff.





Those are the two clauses verbatim except I removed the Company name and salutations and signees names.

 

[army judge]

You should consult with your union officials on this matter.

They in turn should be consulting with counsel and/or your union HQ.

My reading of those passages doesn't deduce any guarantee of payments in the event of a plant closure. In fact, it contradicts your supposition.

Consult with your union leadership for a specific answer. That's precisely why you pay dues!!!

 

[malmshteen]

Yes, obviously the union will need to hash this out. I realize no definitive answer can be gotten here.

We have consulted with union leadership on this, and their position is that 6 months is correct. However, the company position seems to be that 90 days is all that is required.

I was just curious what knowledgeable, uninvolved parties thought. Looking for an unbiased opinion based on the existing language.

Can I ask, to the individual above who said this language seemed to go against 6 months, what the reasoning is? I don't mean to argue the point, I honestly don't know. I just want to understand.

 

[army judge]

Read the first three paragraphs.

The language is very clear.

It says nothing about a six month guaranteed wage.

It only says that a meeting is to occur within 15 days of a layoff announcement.

The meeting is to negotiate the terms of any funding.

If the union and management can't reach an agreement, a lockout can occur. Or, the union can strike.

It appears a lockout is coming.

I see nothing that says terminated employees are guaranteed a dime.

The passages you posted only address layoffs.

They say nothing about plant closures.

Plant closure language was eliminated years ago.

Why?

Too many closures these days.

Finally, I caution you to read the entire agreement.

These agreements are very complex.

From what I've read, I see nothing guaranteeing a six month payout for a plant closure.

Please, consult your union officials.

They should be able to provide you with a definitive answer.

Another source of answers should be available through your HR Officials.

 

[army judge]

One further observation on this dilemma.

Your agreement expires in January of '12.

The plant ownership could let it expire.

In fact, if I were advising them, that's what I'd tell them to do.

Why?

Well, if the CBA expires, you get nothing.

You don't seem to be getting anything anyway, but expiration ensures you won't.

When January arrives, closing the plant won't even be up for discussion.

I suspect your union leadership is just stringing you along until then.

I've seen unions and their leadership get huge payouts to keep the workers in line until the doors are booted and the lights turned off.

That could be the case here.

As I said, you haven't given me anything that supports the six month guaranteed payout, nothing.

In fact, the only reference to six months has to do with notice by management to the union. Nothing is said about paying six months of wages.

 

[malmshteen]

Thanks, I appreciate your insight. Company HR officials won't give any answers, as they claim that is bargaining, and they can't bargain individually.

Oh, and one more point I didn't state earlier - the CBA expires 2/1/12, but the company has stated we will all be laid off by the end if the year.

I'm confused, though. You state there is no language about closure, but the first side letter I posted was specifically about closure - that was all it addressed. I see what you mean about guaranteed payouts, though.

However, can't it be likened to a rental agreement? Those often have requirements for the renter to give, say, 30 days notice that a tenant must vacate. If it only says 30 days notice, can the renter then give notice that in 30 days there will be no more rental, but the tenant must move out tomorrow?

Again, I'm not arguing you're wrong - I'm a total moron when it comes to the intricacies of law. I'm just trying to understand. And maybe grasping at straws.

It almost sounds like, since it states, "at least 6 months written notice," that they could have simply given notice immediately after the contract was signed that the plant was going to shutdown sometime after 6 months, with an open ended date, and be covered, even if it didn't.

 

[army judge]

Please, don't take what I say as golden.
However, prepare yourself for news that you might not wish to hear.

I suggest you get 10, 20, as many people as you can muster and ask your union leadership to meet with you.

You pay dues.

The union takes your money.

You have a contract with them.

They should meet with your group and answer your questions.

Otherwise, hire a lawyer (split the costs) and have the lawyer get the answers you seek.

 

[malmshteen]

I respect your greater knowledge of the law, and see you are a retired lawyer and judge. I appreciate your taking the time to give me your perspective.

At the same time, I recognize I've given you a limited set of data with which to work, and that there are many variables which could affect the outcome which I'm not able to supply.

Let me assure you, the union is meeting with us regularly. Their belief is that the closure side note means we are paid for 6 months minimum after closure notice is submitted. They state that was the intent of the clause when bargained, as discussed with management.

I don't really think we'll be laid off with nothing. This isn't a struggling small company, its a major corporation which reports in excess of $1 billon net profit per quarter. I believe they will at the minimum honor the severance clause of the contract. Maybe a little more, maybe not. We'll see, though.

Thanks again for your input. Please, anyone else who has thoughts on this, pass them on.

 

[cbg]

Speaking from an HR perspective, your HR personnel are correct in not discussing it. There are no doubt a great many decisions still to be made and quite possibly, if a sale is imminent, due diligence going on. Until there are firm answers and any due diligence completed, HR cannot legally discuss the matter outside of the bargaining table.