Snook v. Int'l Union United Auto.
| Decision Date | 02 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:15-cv-10622 |
| Parties | JENNIFER SNOOK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 602; INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA; and GENERAL MOTORS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [34, 35]
With the ratification of the 2007 collective bargaining agreement, a new two-tier wage structure was introduced at General Motors. Under the 2007 CBA, employees hired to perform "non-core" jobs were paid lower, entry-level wages while other employees were paid higher, traditional wages. Not long after the CBA was ratified, some senior GM employees voiced concern over non-core workers making less because they wanted to transition into these less physically demanding non-core jobs at traditional pay. Defendant International Union United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("International UAW") brought this issue to the attention of GM and, in March 2008, GM and the International UAW entered into agreements that they claim changed who would be paid entry-level wages. In particular, GM and International UAW claim that the March 2008 agreements permitted GM to hire a predetermined number of employees at the entry-level wage—regardless of the type of work performed.
Plaintiffs are 23 current or former employees of GM whom GM paid entry-level wages. They maintain that the March 2008 agreements did not modify the 2007 CBA's provision that only those working non-core jobs would be paid entry-level wages. As Plaintiffs performed only core work, they contend that GM breached the 2007 CBA by paying them entry-level wages. Plaintiffs further claim that International UAW, and their local union, Local 602 of the International UAW, should have done more to contest GM's payment of entry-level wages to those performing core work. For these and other reasons, Plaintiffs sued GM, International UAW, and Local 602.
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by GM and another filed by the Unions. Having reviewed the parties' extensive briefing and having heard oral argument, the Court will GRANT Defendants' motions for the reasons set forth below.
In January 2007, Plaintiffs were hired as temporary employees at GM's Lansing Delta Township facility ("LDT" or "Lansing") at a wage of about $18 an hour. (See e.g., R. 35, PID 1129.) Plaintiffs claim (but Defendants dispute) that they were being paid under Paragraph 98 of the 2003 GM-UAW collective bargaining agreement. (R. 1, ¶ 7; R. 35, PID 915.) Under that paragraph, employees' wages gradually progressed to about $28 an hour after about three years on the job. (R. 1, ¶ 7) Moreover, Paragraph 98 provided that if employees left GM but were brought back within a year, they would continue in their wage progression instead of starting over. (R. 1, ¶ 7.)
In the fall of 2007, a new GM-UAW collective bargaining agreement was up for ratification. A "FAQs" flyer stated that if the new CBA was ratified, 500 temporary employees at Lansing would be hired as permanent employees if they were still employed on January 2, 2008. (R. 38, PID 2379.) Another informational document ("Temps & New National Agreement") stated that temporaries then employed at Lansing would not be impacted by the "two tier wage system." (R. 38, PID 2381.)
The referenced two-tiered wage system was a product of negotiations between GM and the International UAW. GM had contemplated outsourcing over 16,000 so-called "non-core" jobs to better compete with Japanese automakers. (See R. 35, PID 1033-34, 2120.) The International UAW, however, fought to retain these jobs in house. (See R. 35, PID 1034, 2120.) Ultimately, the International UAW "agreed to a competitive wage for non-core work in return for an outsourcing moratorium." (R. 35, PID 2120.)
The 2007 GM-UAW collective bargaining agreement ("2007 CBA") was ratified with an effective date of October 15, 2007. (R. 35, PID 971.) As most relevant to this case, it memorialized the two-tier wage structure. In particular, Paragraph 98 of the 2007 CBA paid traditional wages and provided for traditional progression. (See R. 1, ¶ 7; R. 35, PID 915; R. 35, PID 985-86.) But the 2007 CBA also included a document titled "Memorandum of Understanding UAW-GM Entry Level Wage & Benefit Agreement" ("Entry Level MOU"). The terms of the Entry Level MOU applied to all "entry level employees," which the MOU defined as "regular employees hired on or after the date of this Memorandum into the non-core work functions identified on Attachment A of this Memorandum." (R. 35, PID 1006.) Attachment A identified work functions such as machining, sub-assembly, and inspection. (R. 35, PID 1010.) Significantly, the Entry Level MOU set forth its own starting wage and progression for theemployees it covered—a wage and progression lower than that of Paragraph 98. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were not hired into and were not assigned to the "non-core work functions" identified in the Entry Level MOU.
The 2007 CBA also included "Document 162," which provided (consistent with the "FAQs" flyer) that 500 temporaries at Lansing would be made permanent—if "still working at Lansing Delta Township on 1/2/08." (R. 35, PID 1015.)
It appears that sometime in the fall of 2007, GM no longer required (or could no longer sustain) a third shift at Lansing. Just a week after the 2007 CBA was ratified, GM wrote a letter to the International UAW stating that GM planned to eliminate the third shift and lay off 510 regular employees and all 500 temporary employees at Lansing. (R. 35, PID 1179.)
Upset that these layoffs would occur during the holidays, Steve Bramos, then the Bargaining Chairman of Local 602, requested a meeting with GM and the International UAW. (R. 35, PID 1112.) Apparently as a result of this meeting, on October 25, 2007, the International UAW and GM entered a memorandum of understanding regarding the Lansing temporaries ("October 2007 MOU"). Under this MOU, the third shift at Lansing would cease on December 21, 2007. (R. 35, PID 1181.) But temporaries at Lansing would receive holiday pay. (Id.) The October 2007 MOU further provided that temporaries would be required to return on January 2, 2008 (to help with transitioning) and would be "released at the point their services are no longer required, no earlier than January 4, 2008 and no later than January 31, 2008." (Id.) Most significant to this case, the MOU rescinded the permanent-hire promise of Document 162 (for the 500 temporaries still employed on January 2, 2008): "It is agreed that as they relate to LDT, the terms of the letter entitled, 'Temporary Employee Placement,' [Document 162] contained in the 2007 [CBA] are superseded by this understanding and hereby waived." (Id.)
On November 7, 2007, Bramos held a Local 602 meeting to explain the reduction in force. (See R. 35, PID 1213.) Meeting minutes indicate that the terms of the October 2007 MOU were discussed, including the fact that the MOU "supersede[d]" the commitment to hire temporaries on January 2, 2008 as contemplated by Document 162. (Id.)
Plaintiff Andrea Kilmartin (and others) approached Bramos about filing a grievance, though it is unclear whether she did so before or after the November 7 meeting or whether she even attended the meeting. (R. 35, PID 1111.) At his deposition, Bramos stated that he did not file a grievance because "[t]here was no [contract] violation." (R. 35, PID 1111.) He elaborated: (R. 35, PID 1111.)
Consistent with the October 2007 MOU, Plaintiffs were released in January 2008. By that time Plaintiffs' wages had progressed to about $22 an hour. (See R. 35, PID 1129, 1746.)
Given that the Entry Level MOU of the 2007 CBA provided that GM could pay new employees hired into non-core job functions less than traditional wages, senior GM employees (making traditional wages) became concerned that they would not be able to transition to these job functions. (R. 35, PID 1843.) Yet these non-core jobs were desired by many senior employees as they were generally less physically taxing than others. (R. 35, PID 1843, 2120.) So union officials began receiving complaints from senior GM employees.
According to then International UAW Assistant Director Mike Grimes, the International UAW thus took the following position with GM: "As long as you got a number, why does itmatter where the employee's at? . . . As long as you got the number of non-core jobs, why does it matter where they work?" (R. 35, PID 1843.)
Arthur Schwartz, then the Director of Labor Relations for GM and one of the individuals involved in the creation and implementation of the core and non-core structure (R. 35, PID 1032), recalled the situation similarly. He agreed that the unions' position was that senior employees wanted the less demanding, non-core jobs but did not want a reduction in pay. (R. 35, PID 1036.) Schwartz testified that the issue "was eventually resolved with the two March [2008] memoranda . . . by saying that anyone who goes into the plant as a new hire is going to be entry level." (R. 35, PID 1035.)
One of the two negotiated documents referenced by Schwartz was the "Core/Non Core and Entry Level Job Assignment Clarification" executed on March 3, 2008 ("March 2008 Clarification"). (R. 35, PID 1947.) That one-page document provided that seniority employees would be "eligible to exercise their seniority rights for non-core jobs," that GM and the International UAW (and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial