Bommicino v. Gen. Motors, LLC
| Decision Date | 23 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-cv-2400-JEC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
| Parties | CHARLES BOMMICINO, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC f/k/a GENERAL MOTORS CORP., UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 10, et al., Defendants. |
This case is presently before the Court on defendant General Motors, LLC's ("General Motors") Motion for Summary Judgment [53] and defendant United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 10's (the "Union" or "Local 10") Motion for Summary Judgment [56]. The Court has reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties and, for the reasons that follow, concludes that defendant General Motors' Motion for Summary Judgment [53] is GRANTED and the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment [56] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Charles Bommicino was an hourly employee of defendant General Motors and worked as a forklift mechanic at the Doraville, Georgia assembly plant. (Def. General Motors Statement of Material Facts ("GMSMF") [53] at ¶ 1.) Plaintiff was also a member of the local chapter of the UAW: defendant Local 10. (Union's Statement of Material Facts [56] at ¶ 1.) In approximately November 2005, General Motors announced it was closing the Doraville assembly plant, along with four other facilities. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 3.) In connection with the plant closure, General Motors offered a "Special Attrition Program" ("SAP") to hourly employees at Doraville in 2008. (Id. at ¶ 4.) The 2008 SAP was a collectively bargained agreement ("CBA") between General Motors and the UAW consisting of enhanced benefits upon termination of employment available to UAW members on a voluntary basis. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
Under the 2008 SAP, employees could select one of four options under which they could either retire or quit in exchange for enhanced retirement benefits and/or a lump sum settlement. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff signed up for the SAP on May 22, 2008, electing to retire under "Option 1" on October 1, 2008 with certain retirement benefits, subject to benefit plan terms, and a lump sum payment of $62,500.00. (Id. at ¶ 9.) In order to receive this option, the SAP provides thatthe employee "must meet all eligibility conditions of the Option in order to receive it." (Form A, p. 2 of SAP, attached to Pl.'s Dep. [57] at Ex. 1.) General Motors indicates that plaintiff's active employment on the designated date of separation was a prerequisite to obtaining "Option 1" benefits under the SAP. (Hunter Decl. [53] at ¶ 4.) Unfortunately for plaintiff, General Motors terminated him prior to the October 1 effective date of his retirement.
Specifically, weeks before plaintiff agreed to retire under the SAP, Beth Zefo, a labor relations supervisor at General Motors, began investigating a report that plaintiff was leaving the plant during work hours and having another employee swipe his badge at the end of the shift in order to clock him out. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 10; Zefo Dep. [64] at 36-37.)1 As part of its investigation, General Motors arranged for investigators from a third-party security service tofollow plaintiff and record surveillance video if he left the plant during work hours. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 11.) In addition, General Motors' management assembled time clock and swipe history reports for plaintiff to determine where in the plant this other employee was clocking plaintiff out at the end of his shift. (Id.)
Following General Motors' investigation, Zefo and Jim Brassfield, Labor Relations Representative, conducted a disciplinary interview with plaintiff on June 26, 2008, pursuant to Paragraph 76(a) of the "National Agreement." (Id. at ¶ 12.) The National Agreement is a collectively bargained agreement between the national UAW, defendant Union, and General Motors, that governs the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff's union representative, Shop Chairman Claude Willis, was also present at this interview. (Id. at ¶ 12.) At this interview, Zefo presented plaintiff with the results of her investigation.
Plaintiff was charged with leaving the plant while clocked in and having another employee cover for his unauthorized departure by swiping plaintiff's badge at the end of the shift. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 13.) In essence, plaintiff was accused of stealing from General Motors by accepting pay for hours he did not work. To support this charge, Zefo listed dates, times, and column locations of the time clock where the badge was swiped, while plaintiff's vehicle was observed away from the plant. (Id.) Zefo also informed plaintiffthat, on May 20, 2008, she personally witnessed another employee swipe plaintiff's badge at 6:08 PM, while plaintiff (or at least his vehicle) was observed away from the plant. (Id. at ¶ 17.) She compared the 6:08 PM swipe time from the same station and confirmed that plaintiff's badge had been swiped at 6:08 PM and no other badges had been swiped at that station around the same time. (Id.)
Defendant denies that he was ever seen away from the plant while he was clocked in, and attributes his perceived absenteeism to the fact that investigators failed to realize that plaintiff owns several vehicles and takes different vehicles to and from work. (Resp. to GMSMF [65] at ¶¶ 13, 17.) He said that he would go home for lunch and return with a different vehicle, which might leave the impression he was still at home. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 18.) Although not mentioned in the 76(a) interview, plaintiff later stated that his supervisor allowed him to combine his lunch and break periods, which allowed him to be away from the plant for up to an hour and fifteen minutes. (Id. at ¶ 19.)
Plaintiff was asked during the interview to produce his employee badge and asked if he had any other badges in his possession. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Plaintiff turned over two badges: his own and the badge of Larry Grogan, a former General Motors employee. (Id.) Even though General Motors requires employees to turn in badges when their employment ends, plaintiff stated that Mr. Grogan gave him the badgeas a "souvenir" when Mr. Grogan retired the year before. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Zefo believes that plaintiff may have been using Mr. Grogan's badge to enter and exit the security gate without his own badge. (Zefo Dep. [64] at 103-104.) Employees were not required to swipe their badges to enter many of the gates; rather, they merely needed to flash their badges to security. (Id. at 103-104; Willis Dep. [63] at 49-51.) Thus, plaintiff could exit the plant while another employee kept plaintiff's actual ID badge so as to later swipe that badge and make it appear that plaintiff had left at a later time than he, in fact, departed.
At the close of the 76(a) interview on June 26, 2008, General Motors notified plaintiff that he was being discharged immediately for misconduct based on all the allegations set forth by management during the interview. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 22.) Because plaintiff failed to remain employed until the effective date of his retirement, General Motors took the position that he was no longer eligible for retirement benefits or the lump sum payments under the 2008 SAP. (Hunter Decl. [53] at ¶ 4.)
On the same day as plaintiff's 76(a) interview, Zefo, Brassfield, Willis, and Committeeman Craig Yates attended a 76(a) interview with Stanislaw Kulpa. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 26.) Zefo informed Kulpa that she personally observed him swipe plaintiff's badge on May 20, 2008, but Kulpa denied the allegations. (Id.) Following theinterview, defendant General Motors terminated Kulpa's employment. (Id.)
Immediately after plaintiff received his discharge paperwork, union representative Willis submitted a grievance to management on behalf of plaintiff, contesting his termination as unjust. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 24.) Zefo denied the grievance immediately. (Zefo Dep. [64] at 113.) Thereafter, Union representatives attempted to gather information related to the allegations against plaintiff from other employees in his department. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 27.)
Willis was unable to gather any additional information, and he requested a meeting with Zefo and Personnel Director Steve Hunter to discuss plaintiff's discharge grievance. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Willis made specific arguments attacking General Motor's evidence against plaintiff and argued that the discharge was unjust given plaintiff's previously clean disciplinary record. (Id.) Hunter encouraged Willis to withdraw plaintiff's grievance, but Willis declined to do so. (Id.) Later in July, Zefo took Willis to the break room where she was located when she observed Kulpa swipe plaintiff's badge. (Id. at ¶ 29.) Willis asked Zefo questions about where she was positioned in the break room and how she could see the time clock at which Kulpa swiped the badge. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 29.)
The next day, in an effort to build a defense for plaintiff, Willis and the rest of the Shop Committee returned to the break room and reconstructed the scene as Zefo described. (Id. at ¶ 30.) The Shop Committee concluded that Zefo's version of events was credible, as she was in a position in which she could monitor the time clock and positively identify Kulpa. (Id.) Willis met with Hunter and Zefo again about plaintiff's grievance, and argued that plaintiff should be reinstated with full pay and benefits. (Id. at ¶ 31.)
On or about August 7, 2008, Willis met with Sam Kuper, Senior Labor Relations Manager, about plaintiff's discharge grievance and local management's unwillingness to negotiate any settlement involving reinstatement. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Willis and General Motors' management met on several more occasions in August to discuss their respective positions on settlement, with the union demanding reinstatement with full back pay, but with management denying the request. (GMSMF [53] at ¶ 33.) Around this same time, Willis...
To continue reading
Request your trial