The National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling on November 5, 2010, Case 7–CA–52106 Comau, Inc. and Automated Systems Workers Local 1123, A Division of Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. The case is an obvious precedent setting and we are very happy and relieved in this wise decision for the benefit to the employees.
We find this case has some similarity to our current healthcare change coverage from one insurance company to the other. We wonder whether this change will affect the hospitalization, medical, dental, and vision care benefits of the employees? Also whether this change of the healthcare insurance was done unilaterally by the employer without the consent of Local 100.
Was this switch consented by the Local 100? Whether the cost (premium) to the employees will stay the same - since the new insurance company as demonstrated in the above case kept changing the trailing cost from $183,000 to $240,000 till $440,000.
The case illustrated how the employees (blue collar)made every concession to the employer who could not be satisfied. That was a European automotive company which is coming to the USA to gain foothold but their practices are unfair towards the blue collar workers. They went to the extent of urging the Union to reach a new collective-bargaining agreement and tried to motivate the Union by stating that a new contract would nullify the decertification effort.
In our case we have a contract which was ratified and thus is a binding contract while in effect. However the Comau case the switch was done during the contract negotiation period. Our contract is somewhat silent and it gives the impression that the employer has the exclusive right to switch insurance companies and we don't like that. In the future it may lead to the detriment of the blue collar workers. Therefore this issue of switching insurance companies must be addressed properly and to the benefit of the blue collar in the contract of 2012.
The wording in contract in the 4. Health Benefits ...The Union will be informed of and have input into any administrative changes that may impact upon those receiving benefits. The above wording is unacceptable and we propose the following instead ‘In the event that the employer wants to switch insurance companies, whether in the manner of cost neutrality or cost savings that change will not affect the memberships’ hospitalization, medical, dental, and vision care benefits while in the preliminary stage the employer must seek union consent and approval for the switch’.
In the above case the employer wished to increase the employees cost (premium) anywhere from $57.28 to $453.05 per month. The employees could also pay an additional $321.04 to $507.26 per month to obtain coverage for a child between 19 and 25 years of age. It is obvious this employer is wrong and we are pleased with NLRB with its ruling in correcting this wrong. We were excited that NLRB told the employer to learn the meaning of the word ‘implement’ from Webster’s Dictionary that was beautiful. Imagine how much a blue collar workers’ paycheck would be after the deduction of those exorbitant amounts.
We hope Samuelsen pays attention to the employers switch of the insurance companies and the disadvantage that it has on Blue collar workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment