Pacifica vindicated on labor issues at KPFA!

1-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 15, 2011

For information contact:
Arlene Engelhardt
510-849-2590, ext. 208

PACIFICA FOUNDATION VINDICATED ON LABOR ISSUES AT KPFA

This statement is to inform our listeners, subscribers and any other interested members of the public of the final resolution of all legal claims brought by Communication Workers of America Local 9415 against Pacifica Foundation. We are pleased to announce that all the claims have either been withdrawn or decided in the foundation’s favor.

A decision has been reached in the arbitration proceedings regarding the employment of Aimee Allison, who was laid off as a result of a reduction in force at KPFA for budgetary reasons. In a victory for the foundation, and after months of acrimony from some on-air union staff members, a neutral arbitrator denied the union’s grievance and determined that the foundation laid off Ms. Allison, who had less seniority than other program hosts, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator found that the foundation actively explored alternatives to the layoff proposed by the union, but that most of the alternatives "would do nothing to attack the root cause of KPFA's problems, which is expenses greater than costs, and especially the need to cut personnel costs." The arbitrator agreed with the foundation’s position that the “only apparently effective way to do this was to lay off personnel.” We wish Ms. Allison well in her future endeavours.

Additionally, each of the three complaints filed by the Communication Workers of America Local 9415 with the National Labor Relations Board have been closed. The union withdrew two of the charges after the NLRB concluded its investigation into each. An advice memo issued by the NLRB's General Counsel on April 18, 2011 reveals that the NLRB advised the union that its charges related to the layoffs conducted by the foundation were without merit and would be dismissed if not withdrawn by the union. The advice memo can be found here. [see below] The union’s third charge, protesting what the union has incorrectly called the foundation’s "gag rule," was dismissed by the NLRB. The NLRB found that the foundation's rules concerning on-air statements "were narrowly confined to protect the foundation’s core purpose."

Pacifica Executive Director Arlene Engelhardt states "I am pleased that Pacifica was vindicated on all counts and that these matters have now been resolved".

Any requests for additional information may be directed to arlene [at] pacifica.org.



2- Some background:
There has been much misinformation around the layoffs at KPFA, untruths which appear to be conscious lies by some of the perpetrators. Then there are those followers who put their trust in these people, and lastly, listener-followers who know nothing about the structure of KPFA and Pacifica (having been kept in the dark and lied to previously) whom the former are manipulating to demand reversal of the layoffs.
Brian Edwards-Tiekert was not fired and then reinstated with back pay, as is claimed. After his layoff he was offered the opportunity to claim a job from a worker with less seniority, following the union contract, but he declined to do so in order to get his Morning Show host job back. When months later he decided to take that opportunity, he did bump a person on the evening news team (whose job was saved by other paid workers vacating some of their hours and giving them to him), but spun this as Pacifica seeing they were wrong and about to lose, and reinstating him with back pay. No. It was Tiekert seeing he was about to lose, accepting the bumping right, and trying to sue for back pay. Pacifica then granted him the back pay in order to avoid more court costs, which they could not afford.
All this litigation was instigated by the core CWA/"Save KPFA" faction, to threaten Pacifica into submission, to reinstate 2 jobs. Or possibly to bankrupt KPFA/Pacifica and then buy it.
And there may be more to come.
Meanwhile, 2 or 3 years ago, all the other of the 5 Pacifica stations complied with Pacifica's requests to cut down on paid staff hours, as the only way to cut expenses in the face of lowered contributions, and as Pacifica National Office itself had to do.
Only the core staff and allies at KPFA failed to do so, losing over a million dollars and placing the entire network in jeopardy, to the point where Pacifica had to step in and make the KPFA cuts themselves.
The result has been a gain in revenues for both KPFA and Pacifica as expenses were brought more into line with income. The Morning Show may have raised a lot of funds but less paid staff was the only solution. The fund drives themselves have had increased contributions since the layoffs.
And all the while the "I Just Want My Morning Show Back" movement stupidly on the part of some and maliciously on the part of others persisted in a demand to save 2 jobs which might have obliterated the entire station and network.

3- Some prior comments: (without names because I'm posting them without permission)

*Anti Labor?
The NLRB upheld the stipulations in the union's own contract from a few workers who were only out for themselves and screwing everyone else!

*. . . Just about every union has had NLRB complaints filed against them (even the ILWU ) at one time or
another by laid off or fired staffers . And every union (and progressive non profit ) had laid off staffers due to financial problems.

* I do wish people filing these bogus law suits just to get money from Pacifica (and there are a few of them out there) would stop: they are bleeding Pacifica dry. Perhaps that is their purpose: perhaps they will succeed. Perhaps we should start to countersue for slander, harassment, and (is it allowed) stupidity.

4 -ADVICE MEMO FROM THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dated April 18, 2011
(posted online here) http://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/advice-memos

Text:

This case was submitted for advice as to whether the Employer violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by: (1) failing and refusing to comply with an obligation to meet and bargain with the Union over alternatives to employee layoffs prior to implementing any such layoffs; (2) breaching an alleged agreement with the Union that would have allowed employees covered under the Employer’s health plan to move to an equivalent Medicare plan as a cost cutting alternative to layoffs; and (3) referring the Union’s proposals to the Finance Committee of the Employer’s Board of Directors, an action the Union claims was in direct contravention of the collective-bargaining agreement’s delegation of bargaining authority to the Executive Director.

ACTION
For the reasons stated below, we agree with the Region that the instant charge should be dismissed, absent withdrawal, because none of the 8(a)(5) allegations have
merit.

With respect to the first allegation, the Employer was not obligated to meet and bargain with the Union over alternatives to layoffs because the Union waived its right to do so in the collective bargaining agreement.1 Article 12 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement permits the Employer to “reduce the work force due to lack of work or other reasons including economic necessity,” but requires that the Employer “actively explore alternatives to the layoffs(s) before the effective date of the layoff, if so requested by the Union.” This language does not create a duty to bargain about alternatives to the layoffs. What it requires is that the Employer “explore alternatives,” at the request of the Union. Here, the evidence establishes that the Employer met with the Union, at the Union’s request, to discuss the Union’s suggestions for alternatives to layoffs, considered and investigated those alternatives and ultimately rejected the Union’s suggestions by vote of the Board of Director’s finance committee. After that vote, the Employer’s Executive Director met with the Union to explain why the proposals had been rejected. Based on these facts, the Employer met its only contractual obligation, which was to “actively explore alternatives to the layoffs.”

As to the second allegation, the evidence does not support a finding that the Employer agreed to allow employees covered under its health plans to move to an equivalent Medicare plan as a cost cutting alternative to layoffs. Thus, no agreement was breached. Initially, it is undisputed that the parties never agreed in writing to the Union’s proposal. Further, the two Union witnesses themselves have conflicting recollections as to whether an agreement was reached. Thus, one bargaining unit member has notes suggesting that the Employer had orally agreed to this proposal. However, he did not record those notes until sometime after the meeting took place. On the other hand, the Union’s shop steward, who was also at the meeting, did not recall that the Employer had agreed to the proposal. Rather, the steward recalled that although the Employer’s Executive Director was enthusiastic about the Medicare proposal, she did not agree to it. Moreover, the Executive Director testified that although she agreed to look into the Union’s proposal regarding medical benefits, ultimately the Employer rejected the suggestion because of the serious financial risk that it created. Given the absence of any written agreement, and the lack of evidentiary support that the parties verbally reached such an agreement, we conclude that no such agreement was reached and no violation of the Act has been established.

The Union’s final allegation is that the Employer abrogated a delegation of authority in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by submitting the Union’s proposals to the Board of Director’s finance committee. However, there is nothing in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement that would prohibit the Employer from vetting the Union’s proposals through its finance committee. Therefore, the Employer did not violate the Act by doing so.

Accordingly, the Region should dismiss the charge, absent withdrawal.