St. Louis Newspaper Guild

Earlier this month, in our case involving the yellow contract retirees, Lee – after receiving several extensions – finally replied to our motion.  They did this several ways.  First, they counter-sued and seem to want to get a decision under ERISA – the federal law regarding pension plans.  Now, our suit wasn’t filed to have anything decided under ERISA; it was filed to compel arbitration.  The legal differences and reasoning behind it all gets rather complicated and I don’t care to lay out points of strategy on such a public forum, so I will let it go at that.

With their filing, Lee has gone off in a slightly different direction.  In their counter-suit, they ask the court to declare (under the ‘Declaratory Judgement Act”), that they have the right to do what they did under ERISA.  Lee doesn’t stop there though and their suit doesn’t just name the Guild – it names the retirees as defendants as well!  Lee has filed what they are characterizing as a  class-action suit and want to get the court to not only issue a declaratory judgement stating that they have the right to do what they did under ERISA; they also want the court to declare that our retirees can’t sue them in a class-action suit anytime in the future (Did somebody hear something?  Are people getting nervous?).

Most legal scholars would agree that a class-action suit involves a bunch of wronged parties suing a lone, guilty party.  It seems to me – an admitted layman – that it’s a bit of a stretch to think that one party suing a bunch of different parties is the same thing.  But there you have it.  Lee – the company that paid more for a single paper than their entire media empire is now worth – has gone backwards through the looking glass again (however, a quick look online at their new attorneys and one learns that their firm does have a department that handles such things, so who can say).

But – curiouser and curiouser – that’s not the end of it.  To make matters worse, Lee named three seemingly random retirees as “class representatives” and had them served with subpoenas.  One presumes that Lee somehow expects these three retirees, who are living on fixed incomes and who recently have had to purchase health care coverage, to be able to hire attorneys to represent them in federal court.

Then today, Lee struck again.  Going for another declaratory judgement, the corporation filed another counter-suit.  This time they filed against the Guild and our blue contract retirees and they named three more retirees as class representatives for that group as well.  What a world.

As I stated earlier, it is not my intention to discuss pending legal maneuvers, so I will just say that the Guild is busy preparing its response.

Some people are concerned that paying full premiums or notifying Lee they’re getting insurance with another provider could be interpreted as some kind of waiver or voluntary opt out and nullify any chance for future recompense when this issue gets resolved.

Our legal counsel doesn’t think so.  It’s unlikely that a court would find that someone forced to pay or shop for cheaper coverage would have disqualified him/herself from any remedy through the grievance process or through any other means.  Besides, our grievance will have language that provides for that.

Still, perhaps you’re the overly cautious type and want to be absolutely certain that paying the full amount or going with another provider won’t be used against you in the future.  In that case, we suggest your letter to Lee to contain the following:

a)  for those who – because of preexisting conditions or other reasons – stay with Lee:

I submit this payment under protest, and solely to ensure that there is no immediate harm to me or to my family as a result of a gap in coverage.

This payment is submitted without prejudice to my position and the position of the St. Louis Newspaper Guild, that the actions of the Employer are in clear violation of its continued statutory and contractual obligations to me and to the Guild to provide fully paid coverage.

b) and for those who will be going elsewhere for their medical coverage:

I hereby decline continued retiree health care coverage through the Post Dispatch/Lee Enterprise, at my full premium payment.  This is without prejudice to my position, and the position of the St. Louis Newspaper Guild, that the actions of the Employer are in clear violation of its continued statutory and contractual obligations to me and to the Guild to provide fully paid coverage.

There is great concern regarding the precise date by which you must exit Lee’s coverage in order to not have the premium deducted from your January pension.  This is troublesome because at this moment one cannot – with any certainty – plan to leave; one must first be assured of obtaining coverage from another provider (which means completing a medical history census) and then wait to learn whether or not such coverage would be less than Lee’s stated premium.  January 20 is the date that keeps being bandied about and that isn’t actually true.

I contacted Bruce Benson of the Post-Dispatch’s Human Resources Dept and explained the time crunch our retirees were in and requested the latest possible date that one could cancel their coverage this month.  After checking with corporate, Bruce called me back and said that Monday, December 27 is the very last day one can WITHDRAW and not have to pay January’s premium.

What then was the reason everyone thought they only had until the 20th?  Because December 20 is the latest date to CHANGE your Lee coverage – in other words, stay with their insurance but move from the mid-deductible plan to the less expensive high-deductible plan.  So please make note of that date, as well.

One final note**  Should you stay in Lee’s plan and want to opt out at a later date, you may do so at any time.

A meeting of all Post-Dispatch yellow contract retirees will be held on Wednesday, December 8 at 2:00 pm in Room 1030 of the Locust Building, 1015 Locust St.

Guild officials and legal counsel will be on hand to discuss this latest assault on retiree medical benefits and to outline available courses of action.  Also on hand will be Tracy Squires from Arch Brokerage, Inc, who will answer questions about possible replacement policies and their likely cost.

As a broker, Tracy works with all insurance companies in this area (full disclosure: the Guild uses Arch Brokerage for their own insurance needs) and will not try to steer anyone to a favored vendor.  Members, of course, are free to go wherever they desire and to use any broker they desire.  At this point, we simply want to inform our members of as many options as possible and to do it as quickly as possible.

Because Lee Enterprises waited until this late date to inform everyone, there is not a lot of time to decide whether or not you will be staying with your current coverage and having the premium amount deducted from your monthly pension (which is what will occur if you do nothing) or whether you will opt out and purchase insurance from another carrier.   Add to that the fact that medical underwriting often takes two weeks before a price quote can be obtained and you can see that our people are being hard pressed to make a decision within a very small window of time in which to gather vital information needed to make their decision.  So, to jump start the process, we are listing Tracy’s contact information today so you may call or email her immediately, should you so desire:

tsquires@archbrokerage.com

314-849-6363 ext. 109

Tracy will be in and out of her office over the next few days so if you call and she’s out, just leave a message and she’ll get back to you.

Proving once more that the Post-Dispatch’s corporate owner has no heart – or holiday spirit – Lee Enterprises today notified that paper’s former employees who retired under the Guild contract in effect from June ‘04 to March ‘10 that their free medical coverage was being eliminated; those retirees would now have to pay 100% of the premium cost to keep their health care.

Such action flies in the face of contractual language in effect when those members retired and this office will soon file a grievance on their behalf.  Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Lee has launched an economic attack on former employees living on fixed incomes, so we have a pretty good idea of what their response will be and the likely course of action that will then ensue.

A few years ago Lee announced that they were doing the same thing to Guild members who left under a former (blue) contract that ran from 1994 to 2004.  Initially it was for 30% of the cost but last year they raised that amount to 100%.

After that first assault, this office filed a grievance which was denied – based on the fact that retirees are no longer part of the bargaining unit and are no longer represented.  Lee also maintained that expired contracts cannot be grieved (note that they waited to do this latest assault until after the yellow contract expired, as well).  We countered, asserting that the right to medical care in retirement was a ‘vested’ right and that it vested the day the employee went out the door.  All that other stuff about bargaining units and contract expiration – while nominally true – could not trump it.

They refused to participate in the grievance process, so we filed for arbitration.  They refused to arbitrate, so we filed a federal lawsuit.  They moved to dismiss and we cleared that hurdle.  Along the way were other grievances, other filings and a bunch of other stuff (to read it all, check out the rest of our website) and we now find ourselves having won the initial lawsuit and preparing for appeal.  After the judge’s decision in our case, I was hopeful that Lee would not attempt the same thing with our later retirees.  But no.  They did and here we go again.

However, while much of this looks and feels like deja vu, there are some notable differences.  For openers, many of those who left during this last contract, left during one of two buyouts offered in 2005 and 2007.  Many who took the buyout had not yet reached the age of 55; they were lured into retirement with enhanced credits for pension calculations and cash.  And added to those lovely parting gifts was the written promise of free retiree medical.  One has to wonder – it’s bad enough trying to circumvent our expired collective bargaining agreement – how do these scrooges plan to weasel out of such affirming letters on company masthead and upon which the ink is barely dry?

It’s terribly disturbing to realize that a lot of former coworkers will soon be without health care and are still more than ten years away from medicare eligibility.  What does Lee Enterprises expect them to do?  It would seem incredibly callous for corporate to take the position of, “Well, that’s their problem” when it was Lee who enticed them out the door in the first place!  This latest action by our corporate overlords goes beyond mere greed – it is a despicable act by an outfit that has apparently decided that employees  who can remember JFK, Viet Nam and the Beatles are too expensive to keep around and are willing to lie to their faces in order to sever that relationship.

As before, the Guild will stand with its retired members and take all appropriate measures to hold Lee Enterprises accountable for this latest attack.  Please know that the Guild office will be closed on Thanksgiving and the day after.  We will file all necessary paperwork early next week and we will announce a meeting for our affected members sometime in mid-December.  Until then, even though this action could be financially devastating, please try to not let this ruin your holidays – believe me, these people aren’t worth it.  Growing up, my mother had a big sign in her kitchen.  It read:  Illegitimi non carborundum.  Loosely translated, it means, ‘Don’t let the bastards grind you down.’  Please hang in there; your Guild has your back and we’re fighting for you.  In the meantime, if you can’t afford to pay 100% of Lee’s stated premiums and you have to go out and buy cheaper insurance, please keep good records and all receipts.

We will keep you posted on events as they occur.

Following our recent (Feb 15) arbitration victory, which mandated that Guild retirees moved involuntarily from a low-deductible plan to a mid-deductible plan be reimbursed the difference, the company began issuing checks to Guild members.  Then, of course, things went and got complicated.

The arbitrator’s ruling had a second mandate and that was that those retirees be placed back on the low-deductible plan.  Normally that would not be a problem except for one thing:  during the time that elapsed between the (arbitration) hearing and ruling, the collective bargaining expired.  And the Company asserted that their obligation to place retirees back on the low deductible plan ended with the yellow contract.

Most members are already aware of the many legal issues with which our local has become embroiled concerning whether or not rights “vest” and are carried forward from contract to contract.  We have two cases currently in federal court and both concern retirees and their medical coverage.  So the company’s assertion that their obligation ended with the signing of the new agreement, was not the first time they’d made that argument.  This was, however, the first time they’d made it about a case in the yellow (2004-2009) contract.  And, since Arbitrator William Daniel had ruled so recently, the parties went back and asked for a further arbitral ruling on the issue of how long that remedy is to be applied and what he came back with was not what we had hoped for; he ruled that the company’s obligation ends with the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, which means that no one will be reinstated to the low-deductible medical plan.

Before everyone starts reading too much into this, a few things should be pointed out.  First, unlike our court cases, this issue concerned the yellow contract – not the blue contract, which ran from 1994-2004.  Second, the two contracts do not have identical language.  Third, unlike our court cases, the lifetime argument was not front and center in the low-deductible issue.  The low-deductible case involved “linkage” language in our (yellow) contract which connected the level of coverage our retirees receive to the level of coverage currently employed management receives.  That language is clear and unambiguous and it’s why the company will wind up paying Guild retirees $80,000 in medical cost reimbursements before this is all over and done.  Fourth, our cases in federal court do not have anything to do with linkage; they have to do with vesting and, more importantly, they also concern a different part of the contract.

So, although we are disappointed that, after a lifetime of hard work, our (post June, 2004) retirees are having their coverage reduced, we do not believe that this spells disaster for our court cases involving 1994-2004 retirees who had their coverage eliminated.

So where are we now?  As it stands, yellow contract retirees will still get their reimbursements.   First, those pre 65 were issued checks (which reflect the additional payments Lee would have made had those retirees still been enrolled in the low-deductible plan).  Now, those post 65 are being contacted about their soon-to-be-mailed checks.  Both mailings, by the way, are for money owed for 2009.  The money due for 2010 will be mailed in August, after waiting for the end of claims processed during the period from January 1, 2010 to the start of the new contract on March 28.

We will keep you informed of further developments as they occur.

In an act of defiance to Arbitrator William Daniel’s ruling, Lee Enterprises has refused to place the Guild’s recent retirees back into the low-deductible plan, stating that while Daniel “ordered the P-D to restore the low deductible option for the affected retirees under the 2004-2009 contract…he did not order the P-D to reinstate the low deductible plan beyond the term of the 2004-2009 agreement.”

Here we go again.

This all started in December of 2008, when P-D retirees who left under the (then current) contract were taken off the low-deductible plan and placed on Lee’s mid-deductible plan.  Not only were the deductibles higher, but our retirees incurred additional costs because they were removed from a 90/10 plan and placed on an 80/20 plan.   And once again, those who left with a promise from the paper (considering how the company provided incentives and lowered the retirement age, you could even say they were “lured” off the property) found themselves living on fixed incomes and being forced to cope with rising insurance costs.

The Guild immediately filed a grievance.  That grievance went to arbitration and, on February 15 of this year, the Guild emerged from that process victorious and fully vindicated in our position.  The company had stated that they could remove our retirees because the low-deductible plan was not available for management retirees.  We argued that our retirees medical coverage was not linked to management retirees but, rather, current management employees.  The arbitrator agreed and issued a ruling that directed the company to refund our retirees the difference in coverage (those checks have been issued) and reinstate them to the low-deductible plan.

However, on March 28 a new contract took effect and the company now maintains that as the old agreement ended, so too did their obligation to provide the better coverage.  Letters from Lee to our yellow contract retirees state that they will be kept on the mid-deductible plan.  Our position, however, has not changed; there is still a low deductible plan – it has not gone away.  Current management employees are on that plan.  Our retirees should be on it, as well.

The Guild has already notified the arbitrator and asked for a further arbitral ruling.  In the meantime we also filed a grievance.  We have to take this a step at a time but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the parties could find themselves in federal court once more.  Stay tuned for further updates.

As announced on this website February 20, the Guild won its grievance protesting Lee’s arbitrary changing of our (yellow contract) retiree’s medical coverage from a low-deductible 90/10 plan to a mid-deductible 80/20 plan.  In the decision handed down by the arbitrator, he quoted liberally from our brief and framed the issues and arguments as we had first suggested when we filed our grievance.

Since that announcement we have received calls and emails from retirees wanting to know when they can expect to receive something from the company.  The answer to that is very soon.

There are two separate components of the make whole remedy.  First, all retirees are entitled to be reimbursed for the difference between the mid and low deductible amounts.  Second, the employer must provide 90/10% co-insurance, instead of 80/20% co-insurance.

I have been in contact with the company about this.  They have been computing who is due what and will soon send out the first checks to those under the age of 65 who are due reimbursement for the year 2009.  Almost immediately  after that (within 10 days) they will send checks to those over age 65 also due reimbursement for 2009.  Finally, there is the issue of those who are due reimbursement for the year 2010.  The company has stated that they need to wait until mid-June in order to allow all claims be processed.  That makes sense and so retirees due a reimbursement for this year should see a check by the fourth of July.  When you get it, go buy some fireworks and celebrate. We have a lot of retirees who will be receiving some serious coin – I’m already aware of eight who will receive over $1,000.  All told, this award  means over $60,000 will be repaid to Guild retirees.  Proof that it doesn’t cost – it PAYS – to belong to a union.

When your check arrives, please check your records to make sure that you are receiving the correct amount.  If you think something amiss, let the company know but please notify this office as well.  Thanks.

We’ve been getting calls at the Guild office from Post-Dispatch retirees wanting to know if their pensions are going to be impacted by the proposed pension freeze in the company’s last, best and final offer.  The answer is no.  The company’s proposal affects only those still working at the paper.  In a similar vein, some retirees have called asking about voting on Saturday and, since the proposal affects only those currently employed at the P-D, everyone needs to understand that active members are the only ones eligible to attend the meeting and vote.

Current contract (2004-present) retirees are anxious about whether or not their retiree medical benefits will be eliminated if the proposal is voted in or if it gets imposed.  The only answer is that we honestly do not know what Lee Enterprises has in mind.  They might do what they did to our earlier retirees, those who left during the blue (1994-2004) contract, and cut their benefits.  They might do it soon or wait until the end of the year.  Or they may do nothing at all (we believe that the yellow contract’s language is stronger in the area of benefit rights).

Should Lee once again cut retiree benefits, the Guild would once again file a grievance and attempt to get it before an arbitrator, which could mean another trip into federal court.  At this point there’s no way of knowing anything for sure.  Just know that the Guild will stand up for your rights.

One other thing should be noted and that is that many of those who retired under this agreement did so as a result of an enhanced buyout offer.  Members who retired under those terms received a written document from the company stating that their medical premiums would be totally free and those individuals may have another legal argument altogether.  In any event, if you are a retiree that currently enjoys free medical, please contact this office the minute you hear that anything about your benefits changing.  Thank you.

In what can only be described as “total vindication,” recent Guild retirees, who had their low-deductible medical plan changed to a mid or high-level deductible plan, will be getting their original plan reinstated and cash back to boot!

It can get confusing trying to track all the retiree medical disputes in which the Guild finds itself fighting to protect hard-won and long-held rights. So perhaps a recap is in order:

First there is the issue that involves those who retired under the former (blue) contract which ran from 1994-2004. At the end of 2008 they were notified that they would no longer have free medical care and would be required to pay a 30% premium (a year later they were told they would have to pay 100%). When the Guild filed a grievance on their behalf, the company refused to hear it – stating that those retirees are no longer part of the bargaining unit (true) and that you can’t grieve an expired contract (USUALLY true). The Guild believes that those individuals have a “vested right” and filed suit in federal court to compel the company to participate in the arbitration process. That case has been argued and is pending.

Next there is the case which involves some very recent retirees and all members still working at the P-D. Remember now, that those who retired under this contract still enjoy free medical. This dispute arose when the company decided that they would replace recent and future free lifetime medical with a set dollar amount, based on years of service, which would then be used to pay for medical benefits when members retire (there is no actual money being deposited anywhere – it is a “notional” account). We argued that any set amount is a finite amount and could eventually run out. Hence, it violates the whole “lifetime” promise. That grievance was heard, denied and appealed to arbitration.  The Guild was just recently notified by the arbitrator in that case that he is withholding his ruling until the district court rules in the first case.

Finally we come to the third case – the one we just won. This issue concerns those who retired under our current (yellow) contract. In January, 2009, the company eliminated the low-deductible plan for those individuals. Not only were their deductibles a lot higher but the plan they were put on was an 80-20 plan (the low-deductible is a 90-10 plan). That low-deductible plan continued and was available for supervisory/exempt active employees, in spite of the fact that our contract linked our retirees plans to those current admin/exempts. The company denied our grievance, arguing that our retirees were linked to THEIR retirees – not their actives. So we went to arbitration. And won. (BTW, a big reason we won was because Tim O’Neil provided such compelling testimony. He was knowledgeable, credible and his recall of events – backed up with notes that he had kept from then – was instrumental. What a witness!) Now quite a few people are going to be getting some serious money back (not just for the higher deductible amounts but the difference in covered medical expenses as well). We will soon issue an information request to the company to make sure they comply with the award. Savor this one. It’s a great win for our side.

I realize that there’s a lot to keep your eye on; there’s a lot of moving parts. And I know that some members are just convinced that, no matter what, retirees are going to wind up getting screwed. But your union is not convinced. Your union is standing up and fighting for its members every time an issues arises. This local is fortunate to have had such dedicated leaders in its past that saw the need to amass a sizable treasury so that it COULD fight back when needed. And it’s fortunate to have today the kind of leadership and Executive Committee that is willing to spend the dollars it has, even on people that no longer pay any dues; recognizing that those who came before are owed a debt of gratitude and loyalty. We may not win every fight; but by God we will never shy away. We will stand and fight.

Now, if I can just figure out how to post this PDF, I’ll put up the arbitrator’s ruling. It’s a great read (I particularly enjoyed the part where he said the union was credible and that the company wasn’t). Stay united and stay strong.

UPDATE: Here’s the PDF.