Gray v. U.S. Steel Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:09-cv-327-APR |
| Parties | FRANK L. GRAY Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS UNION, Local 1014 Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 77] filed by the defendant, Local 1014 United Steel Workers Union, on April 24, 2013, and the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 79] filed by the defendant, United States Steel Corporation, on April 24, 2013. For the following reason, the motions are GRANTED.
The plaintiff, Frank L. Gray, an African American, began working at the U.S. Steel Gary Works plant in January 1969. Gray worked in the Operational Services Division Machine Shop until he retired on May 29, 2009. The employees in the Machine Shop rebuilt and repaired mechanical equipment used in steel production operations. Employees in the machine shop could be assigned to one of three assembly areas, a field crew that performed work outside the Machine Shop and conducted on site repairs, or to one of fifteen machines. For many years, machine operators who exceeded the performance standards U.S. Steel set would receive an hourly incentive rate in excess of their base pay. The incentive pay made the machines adesirable position within the Machine Shop. When there was a permanent vacancy on a machine, the employees would bid for the job opening. The bidder with the most seniority would be awarded the position.
In 1996, U.S. Steel did not have a sufficient number of qualified checkers to monitor the performance standards of each machine. U.S. Steel proceeded to suspend the performance standard procedures and froze the incentive rates for the machines. For the machine operators who were incumbent to an incentive machine, U.S. Steel agreed to look back at their past six pay periods and pay them their average incentive rate earned over that period. Each incumbent had his own personal incentive rate. U.S. Steel also agreed to pay a fill-in during a temporary vacancy a machine incentive rate that was calculated by taking the average incentive rates that were earned previously on a machine. Machinists who wished to fill-in on a machine during a temporary vacancy had to bid on the assignment. Seniority was used to determine who would be assigned. The 319 bar machine and 325 bar machine had the highest incentive rates that could be earned by fill-ins (376%). The incentive rates on other machines ranged from 306% to 375%. The 1040 slotter, which was the machine that Gray typically ran, had a position incentive rate of 341%.
While employed at U.S. Steel, Gray was a member of the United Steel workers Union and its Local Union 1014. The USW and Local 1014 had exclusive representation of bargaining unit employees working in production and maintenance at U.S. Steel's facilities. The terms and conditions of employment for production and maintenance employees at U.S. Steel were governed by a Basic Labor Agreement (BLA), which was renegotiated in 2003 and 2008.
In 2003, U.S. Steel and USW agreed to restructure the entire job classification system forall production and bargaining unit employees. The 2003 BLA condensed the positions down to six with very broad job descriptions. It eliminated incumbency to a specific machine and allowed bargaining unit employees to perform multiple tasks within their new job description. As a result, all machinists in the Machine Shop, including Gray, were classified as MTMs and were paid at a Labor Grade 4 base rate of pay. U.S. Steel explained that management now could move employees to different job assignments within a position regardless of seniority and could assign a broad array of tasks as set forth in the BLA. For the machine shop, this meant that management could assign MTMs in that unit to any of the floor assembly areas, to perform field work, or to any of the machines falling under the MTM job umbrella. The BLA provided that promotions would be considered based on physical ability to perform the work and plant continuous service. Under the new agreement, the job assignments in the machine shop were all MTM Labor Grade 4 positions and transfer among them was not a promotion.
When the 2003 BLA took effect, U.S. Steel set the incentive rates for the former machine incumbents and the machine fill-ins at 221%. The change in the incentive rate gave rise to a grievance by the machinists who had their own personal incentive rates. U.S. Steel and USW agreed that bargaining unit employees who held incumbency on the incentive machines prior to May 20, 2003, would receive a fixed hourly rate equivalent to their old personal incentive rates. This allowed the employees to earn these wages regardless of what incentive machine they operated or what job they performed in the Machine Shop. All other bargaining unit employees in the machine shop without incumbency to the incentive machines, including Gray, would earn a fixed incentive rate of 221% when filling in on any incentive machine.
Numerous grievances concerning U.S. Steel's ability to assign MTMs to variousassignments in the Machine Shop, incentive rates, overtime distribution, and vacation pay arose from the 2003 BLA. U.S. Steel negotiated with Joe Jarzabkowski, the USW Local 1014 Chairman, to settle the 28 grievances. A settlement was reached on August 8, 2007. The parties agreed to a 185% uniform incentive rate. When the incentive rate was combined with the base rate of pay, this translated into a regular rate of pay of $28.95 an hour for MTMs in the Machine Shop. The memorandum of agreement (MOA) exempted certain MTMs from the 185% and stated that they would be paid an increased flat hourly rate.
Gray, Pat Lobdell, James Hale, and Art Warchus were exempted and given the highest rate of $40.00 an hour, and R. Scott Swenton was assigned $30.44 an hour. The hourly rate of $40.00 an hour was equivalent to an incentive rate of 344%. The MOA also stated that U.S. Steel would pay a lump sum of $125,000 in two installments but that Local 1014 would provide the breakdown to U.S. Steel regarding how the funds would be distributed among the affected employees. Although Lobdell had filed his grievances after Gray and had filed fewer grievances, Jarzabkowski suggested that Gray and Lobdell get $30,000 each. Gray agreed to the settlement. However, he subsequently calculated his losses to total $200,000 because he was not permitted to run the 319 bar machine and lost 8-12 hours per week in overtime.
Prior to the distribution of the lump sum payment, U.S. Steel and Local 1014 agreed to amend the MOA. The addendum changed the rates for four of the employees, but not Gray. Because U.S. Steel would be paying increased rates to more employees than anticipated in the first MOA, the parties agreed that U.S. Steel only would pay out $62,000. U.S. Steel began paying the higher rates immediately. Gray received $40 an hour whether he worked on the machines or in any other area of the Machine Shop. Other than the remaining handful of formermachine incumbents still working in the Machine Shop, Gray and Lobdell were the highest paid MTMs in the Machine Shop.
In August 2007, Jarzabkowski informed Gray that he would be receiving $30,000 from U.S. Steel. He later told Gray that the money would be delayed because there was discord among the Machine Shop employees concerning the terms of the MOA and its Addendum. Local 1014 eventually filed a new grievance challenging the legality of the MOA and Addendum. Because of the new grievance and many objections to the MOA and Addendum, U.S. Steel did not make the $62,000 payment. U.S. Steel and Local 1014 reached an agreement and finalized a new MOA in August 2011 to settle the grievance challenging the MOA and Addendum. In 2011, U.S. Steel paid the $62,000, including $30,000 to Gray.
Over the course of the settlement process, Gray complains that the Union failed to represent his best interests because it did not allow him to remove his grievance from the global settlement group, although it allowed a Caucasian, non-disabled employee, Jeff Carden, to remove his; it did not negotiate a proper settlement on his behalf; and it failed to communicate with him about the status of his grievances. Although Carden's grievance was separated from the mass settlement, it was not taken to arbitration, and Carden received a smaller settlement than Gray. Carden told Gray that the Union had settled his grievance, but the Union and U.S. Steel would not confirm this information. Joe Jarzabkowski, also Caucasian and non-disabled, told Gray that he could not explain the situation and referred him to Alexander Jacque, who then referred Gray to Mike Milsap. Milsap refused to meet with Gray despite his numerous requests.
Gray further states that the Union failed to communicate with him concerning his grievance because it held meetings with the other employees who were part of the globalsettlement agreement regarding the status of their grievances but would not meet with him. The Union reports that the plant chairman met with Gray regarding his grievances in July, August, September, and twice in October. Gray also complained that the Union held a meeting in September but that he was advised not to come. However, the Union states that the September meeting was called by the employees, not the Union, and even if he was discouraged from attending, Gray was not denied entry, particularly not by anyone from the Union.
Gray's grievances arose from his job assignment, pay, and overtime assignments. Gray worked in the East Floor Assembly Area, but he was assigned to the 1040 slotter machine almost daily because Bob Martin, who previously was awarded incumbency to the 1040 slotter machine pre-2003, took a special assignment. Gray wanted to work on the 319 bar machine for a number of years. However, Swenton had been assigned to the machine in the 1990s. Gray thought that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial