|
May 7, 2008
GUILD MONITORING LAYOFFS Company appears to have violated contract Guild files grievance
By now, everyone knows that The Times carried out what it calls “a relatively small number” of involuntary layoffs in the Newsroom yesterday. The Times took this unprecedented step because, it says, too few staffers signed up for the Guild-negotiated voluntary buyout package that provides up to two years pay and extended medical benefits. While the number of layoffs is not huge, the impact on the individuals affected is.
We note that The Times has decided not to release the names of those laid-off, and the Guild has decided to follow suit out of respect for the privacy of those involved.
The Guild wants to make clear that it has been carefully analyzing the layoffs to make sure that management has followed the contract’s job security provisions. At this point, it appears to the Guild that the company has not done so. In fact, the Guild has already filed a grievance regarding the methodology used by The Times to decide who would be laid-off. While the contract does allow out-of-seniority layoffs under certain circumstances, all dismissals are to be made according to the department(s) and job classification(s) affected. It is the Guild’s long-standing position that, for example, all reporters have to be judged as a group, no matter where they are assigned. The Newsroom is a department under our contract. In this case, The Times has made the decision desk by desk. In the Guild’s view, that means the determinations made by management appear to be fundamentally flawed. The Guild already has an arbitration going forward on this departmental seniority issue with regard to a small number of layoffs that took place earlier this year.
However, the Guild realizes that some of the affected staffers may prefer to pursue other options available to them. To that end, the Guild is seeking to negotiate an additional enhancement to the severance package provided in the contract for out-of-seniority layoffs, if the employee involved is interested. If the employee wishes to fight their layoff, the Guild will review each such situation on a case-by-case basis.
According to the notification received by the Guild from The Times, some of the layoffs were done in inverse order of seniority, and some were done out of seniority. The Guild believes that The Times is mistaken here, too. It appears to us that nearly all of the layoffs are out of seniority.
The difference is important, because under the contract, an employee laid off in inverse order of seniority receives what amounts to two weeks’ severance pay for each year of service plus notice pay, and the employee must sign a release to obtain that severance payment.
On the other hand, an employee laid off out of seniority order is entitled to an enhanced package worth three weeks’ salary per year plus notice pay up to 15 weeks, and the employee does not have to sign a release in order to enable the employee and/or the Guild to pursue a claim on the staffer’s behalf, if warranted. Out-of-seniority layoffs can be very difficult to overturn because the company is permitted to make a determination regarding the employee’s qualifications for the remaining work.
THE WRONG MOVE AT THE WRONG TIME
“While the Guild is keenly aware of the challenges being faced by The Times and the rest of the newspaper industry, it believes that the decision to forcibly cut the size of its editorial staff is the wrong move at the wrong time,” said New York Guild President Bill O’Meara. “ We had high hopes that the nation’s most respected newspaper would not resort, as so many other news organizations have, to a quick-fix effort to boost its bottom line at the expense of its newsroom. Sadly, we were disappointed. As a union that values quality journalism, the layoff is very disturbing news. With the competitive pressures it faces in the changing news business and now from Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal, The Times needs a stronger newsroom, not a weaker one.”
#####
05/07/08 |