The Newspaper of Record since 1878

ASARCO files copper price bonus case petition with ‘court of last resort’

Posted

ASARCO filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court last week asking the court to review the copper price bonus case.

The year began with the possibility of a United Steelworkers (USW) strike against ASARCO, especially in light of ongoing contract issues, including the withholding of copper price bonuses since 2011.

In its May 13 press release, the USW said the “long, spiteful and misguided fight” ASARCO has waged is “now nearing its end.”

The “fight,” to which the union refers, is ASARCO’s attempt to “avoid paying the copper price bonus to employees hired after June 30, 2011, as ordered by the arbitrator, confirmed in federal court and twice affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

ASARCO had filed a “petition for writ of certiorari” on Friday, May 10.

The Supreme Court is not bound to any strict timeline for a decision about whether or not to hear the case and it “typically grants only two or three percent of ‘cert petitions’ filed each year,” the union stated in its May 13 press release.

Quoting the Supreme Court website, the USW stated that the court receives about 10,000 petitions cert petitions each year and, of those, about 100 actually receive the writ and have oral arguments before the court.

By the Supreme Court’s own rules, four of its nine judges must vote to accept the case.

A petition seeking review of the final judgement of “the court of last resort,” must be filed within 90 days after the judgement was rendered.

On average, it takes the court about six weeks to act once a petition is filed.

In its May 13 press release, the union stated, “Our unions remain committed to holding management accountable and making sure the company pays those who have been unjustly denied millions of dollars in bonuses and post-judgement interest, as awarded by the arbitrator and ordered by the courts. We will continue to monitor the situation and share information as it becomes available.”

About two months ago, ASARCO made an initial economic proposal, which the union deemed “insulting.”

In its March 1 Facebook post, the USW said that ASARCO presented the union with its first economic proposal Feb. 27, which had “no wage increases and significant changes to the healthcare and benefit plans.”

“Instead of including a proposal on the copper price bonus, they left it simply as ‘TBD’ (to be determined),” the union stated.

ASARCO also proposed that the union withdraw all of its proposals, except for some that had already been agreed upon, and that it accept all of the company’s open proposals, the March 1 post stated.

“We made it clear to the company that this initial proposal is insulting and far from what our members deserve,” the union said. “We know that without appropriate wage increases and protections, it will be difficult for the company to retain a skilled and talented workforce that can operate efficiently and safely.”

The USW requested “key information” from the company, calling it “an important part of the negotiation process,” the March 1 post stated.

The union instructed its members to keep working and stay safe in the meantime.

On Jan. 8, the USW posted on its Facebook page that the union and the company had not met since Dec. 13, 2018.

While the union requested dates from ASARCO to continue negotiations, the company had yet to respond, it said.

“We are still working under the current agreement on a day-to-day basis with 48 hours’ notice to terminate,” the Jan. 8 post stated. “The company has an obligation to meet with the union and should do so immediately.”

On Dec. 3, 2018, the union held strike authorization meetings in Amarillo, Texas, as well as Kearny/Hayden and Tucson.

In its Facebook post, the union told its members they had spoken “loud and clear” at the meetings to authorize its bargaining committee to call a strike when necessary.

The union instructed its members to continue to report to work until told otherwise.

“We will stand together until we get a fair contract,” the Dec. 3 post stated.

With a contract set to expire at midnight Nov. 30, 2018, the bargaining committee made “excellent progress” in prior weeks, negotiating updates to local supplemental agreements.

Unfortunately, ASARCO repeatedly said it was not ready to make a full proposal on the basic labor agreement until that week, the union’s Nov. 28 post stated.

The day before, the company gave the union a non-economic proposal, even though it had promised an economic one, as well.

After not receiving the economic proposal, the union held its three Dec. 3 strike meetings.

“Clearly, the company isn’t taking us seriously,” the union’s Nov. 28 post stated.