|
August 26, 2005 GUILD MAKES STAFF REDUCTIONSAS PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE
In May, the Times announced that it would slash 60 Guild-represented jobs here as part of a 190-person job reduction in New York and at its New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe.
The next day, Guild officials completed emergency negotiations on a voluntary buyout that was based, with some improvements, on the one bargained in the 2003 contract. At the Guild’s urging, the buyout was offered company wide, although the Times was obligated to accept only those who volunteered from targeted areas.
If you volunteered for the buyout and haven’t heard anything from the company by now, you were rejected.
Thirty-two of the targeted employees initially accepted the separation package, which left 28 who were slated for layoff but were seeking other positions. Guild committees headed by Guild Grievance Chairperson Anthony Napoli identified open jobs, interviewed the 28 employees being let go and made recommendations for their placement. The Guild was successful in finding jobs for 20 of them.
The remaining eight then took either the same buyout that had been offered to volunteers company wide, or the enhanced severance package that the contract provides when a job is being outsourced. For some of the employees, depending on their length of service, the contractual severance under the outsourcing provision was more attractive because it included additional notice pay. For others, the voluntary buyout was more advantageous because it provided a continuation of health benefits.
Guild Chairperson Lena Williams was pleased that jobs were found for most of the affected individuals who wanted to remain at the paper, but she was sorry that jobs couldn’t be found for them all.
Although a degree of cooperation between the Guild and the Times resulted in many fewer individuals involuntarily losing their jobs than the 60 who were originally targeted, the reduction in force led to some controversies.
Last month, the Guild filed for arbitration on behalf of nine employees who we believe were misclassified as “casual” employees as part of the building cleaning staff at College Point. The contractual definition of a casual employee is “day-to-day.” These weren’t day-to-day employees. They were regularly scheduled workers.
The nine employees couldn’t be considered temporary, either. Unless an extension is granted, temporary employees are covered by the contract after six months on staff. These individuals had all worked for the company for well over a year when the reduction in force took place.
Considered by management as casual employees, the staffers were not allowed to take advantage of the buyout, weren’t given the severance they were due, and weren’t considered for other employment at the Times because their jobs were being outsourced. We’ll be seeking those rights for them in arbitration.
The Guild is continuing to work with its lawyers over the issue of just how legitimate it is for The Times to (1.) outsource work to itself, as it has done by moving the payroll operation and purchasing to Shared Services in Virginia, a company the Times apparently owns, and (2.) outsource work on its own premises. The Times has moved the shipping and receiving work to Supersonic, given building-cleaning work at College Point to Principal and the cafeteria work at College Point was outsourced to another company.
There may be more litigation to follow regarding those issues.
In the meantime, while layoffs and buyouts have consumed the time of both management and Guild officials and have kept us away from the grievance table, important issues concerning termination and suspensions haven’t gone away.
The Guild has filed for arbitration in the case of Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Nancy Siesel, terminated for vague “performance” reasons that have never been fully explained by the Times. In fact, Ms. Siesel’s termination letter said she was being fired for her “repeated failure to comply with warnings and directives concerning [her] job performance.”
At a photo department meeting the Guild held on March 15, shocked co-workers, who obviously hold Nancy in high esteem, wanted to know why. Why had Nancy been fired? Guild officials couldn’t tell them because we hadn’t been told at the termination meeting.
On the same day as the departmental meeting, Local Representative Bob Townsend wrote to Times management asking for “a detailed account of the reason for Ms. Siesel’s termination and any supporting evidence you may have for that action.”
Nancy’s case was on the May 17 grievance agenda. But we had to hold it in abeyance. We couldn’t argue it because we didn’t know what we were arguing about. The Times still hadn’t provided us with any details about the reasons for Nancy’s discharge.
On July 25, Mr. Townsend wrote another letter to Times management. It read, in part: “I know that you have been extremely busy with the layoffs and buyouts that have been introduced by The Times since Ms. Siesel’s termination, but I think the Guild, in general, and Ms. Siesel, in particular, have been extremely patient waiting for the information that was the basis for her termination. I must insist that it be provided to the Guild by the close of business, Wednesday, August 3, or we will have no choice but to file for arbitration.”
We heard nothing, and we’ve filed.
As hard as it is to believe, when the Times terminated Nancy, it didn’t even grant her severance pay.
“Please be advised that this conduct also constitutes gross neglect of duty. . .,” the termination letter read.
Gross neglect of duty is one of the contractual reasons for which workers can be denied severance pay on termination. Her misconduct was gross, Times officials are telling us, but they’re not telling us what that misconduct was.
An arbitration date of November 8 has been set to challenge the termination of Susan Sachs, a highly respected foreign correspondent.
Ms. Sachs’s case is strictly one of credibility. The Times has accused her of doing something she insists she didn’t do.
True to form, the Times didn’t pay Ms. Sachs her severance, either. Company officials said she was being dishonest with them when they questioned her about the incident in question, an accusation she denies.
Ms. Sachs took a polygraph test in connection with the incident and the lie detector showed that her denial was truthful.
So there you have it. Susan was first sacked, and then denied severance pay for being dishonest when she refused to admit to something she didn’t do!
# # # # #
8/26/05 |