By: Beth Kevit, [email protected]//July 1, 2012//
A contractors association is suing a local steamfitters union, asking a federal judge to rule that a contract exists between them.
The union leadership disagrees and argues the dispute should be settled in arbitration rather than court.
At the heart of the matter is a certified letter.
The lawsuit was brought by The Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association of Southeastern Wisconsin Inc. against Local 601 of the Steamfitters and Refrigeration Service Fitters of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada.
The steamfittersâ contract expired May 31 and, according to the collective bargaining agreement the union has with the contractors association, that contract automatically would be renewed for another year if the union does not object.
The agreement lays out the process for objecting. The steamfitters have to give notice in writing 60 days before the contractâs expiration date if the union wishes to renegotiate. That written notice must contain an explanation of the changes the union desires.
The steamfitters sent a certified letter dated March 29 to the contractors association office, which is about two miles from the steamfittersâ office in Milwaukee. A tracking history provided by the U.S. Postal Service shows that a mail carrier tried to deliver the letter at 8:15 a.m. March 31. That was a Saturday.
Linda Crossman, membership coordinator for the contractors association, signed for the letter April 2, the following Monday.
Kevin LaMere, business manager for Local 601, said the association considered the notice âuntimely and not adequate.â He said the local disagreed.
âThey have asked the court for an injunction,â LaMere said, âand weâre responding to that.â
Lauri Rollings, executive director of the contractors association, declined to comment on pending litigation. Tom Scrivner, the attorney representing the contractors association, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Documents provided to the court show the contractors association believes the letter was not provided within 60 days, while the steamfitters believes April 2, though later than the date of March 31 the union alleges the letter actually was delivered, was the last day before that 60-day window began.
The collective bargaining agreement does not specify the letter must be received or postmarked before that 60-day window, only that written notice must be âgiven.â
Janet Heins, managing partner at Heins Law Office LLC, Mequon, which specializes in negotiating contracts, said âgivenâ was the key word in the agreement. Heins, who is not associated with the lawsuit, said the wording of the agreement could be interpreted in favor of either the steamfitters or the contractors association.
âThe person whoâs trying to give the notice has an argument that they gave notice by dropping it in the mail,â Heins said, adding that the contractors association could claim not to have been given notice until it actually received the letter. âThis is one of those gray areas. I could see a reasonable argument on both sides.â
Court documents filed by attorneys Matthew Robbins, Frederick Perillo and Andrew Smith, who represent the steamfitters, cite a case from 1990 with striking similarity to their clientâs. A lawsuit brought in Illinois regarding a contract for the local bricklayers union dealt with the same termination date of May 31 and the same window of 60 days, according to the documents, but April 2 was determined to be the last day before that window began.
In the steamfittersâ case, the letter does not specify what the steamfitters wants to renegotiate in the contract, which the contractors association alleges is another reason last yearâs contract should stand.
âItâs the same notice weâve been sending to them for 20 years,â LaMere said. âIn the past, weâve just put âamend or modify the agreement.ââ
He said the contractors association always has given a similar notice to the steamfitters.
The contractors association filed its injunction against the steamfitters June 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint claims the matter falls under federal jurisdiction because it involves a labor dispute between an association and a union that affects commerce.
The steamfitters filed a motion June 28 to dismiss the injunction. The union claims the matter should be heard in arbitration rather than by a federal judge. The collective bargaining agreement provides for arbitration, and LaMere said the steamfitters asked the contractors association to go through that process.
The contractors association and steamfitters even sat down for two days in May, LaMere said. The steamfitters brought a proposal to the table, which the contractors association considered and suggested ways to alter. When the union leaders said they would talk about alterations if they entered into formal negotiations, LaMere said, the contractors association refused.
âIt was their refusal to do that that led to a break-up of the talks,â he said.
LaMere said the steamfitters were looking for a wage increase between 2.6 percent and 2.8 percent, which he said was standard among steamfitters unions.
âThe mechanical industry is not taking wage concessions or freezes,â LaMere said.
Representatives of the local plasterers, cement masons, ironworkers, laborers and carpenters unions all reported taking a one-year wage freeze for the coming year. LaMere said the contractors association was looking for a federal ruling in its favor to achieve a de facto wage freeze, which the steamfitters is not prepared to accept.
âThe members have in essence already agreed to take a 50-cent wage cutâ to cover pension costs, LaMere said, adding that rising health care deductible costs are pinching the steamfittersâ take-home pay. âOur members have already suffered a financial setback.â
LaMere wasnât sure when to expect a decision from a judge. If the judge decides in favor of the contractors association, LaMere said, nothing would change.
The steamfitters are working under last yearâs contract. Wages are $37.76 an hour, LaMere said. If the judge decides in favor of the steamfitters, LaMere said, the union could renegotiate the contract. He said the steamfitters now have to wait.
âFor the steamfitters,â LaMere said, âthis might take a while to play out.â