1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

EMILY P. RICH, Bar No. 168735

TRACY L. MAINGUY, Bar No. 176928

CAITLIN GRAY, Bar No. 305118

WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

Telephone (510) 337-1001

Fax (510) 337-1023

E-Mail: bankruptcycourtnotices@unioncounsel.net

erich@unioncounsel.net

tmainguy@unioncounsel.net

cgray@unioncounsel.net

Attorneys for Creditor Engineers and Scientists of California, Local

20, IFPTE

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

In Re

PG&E CORPORATION,

and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Case No. 19-30088 DM

CHAPTER 11

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO

DEBTORS’ MOTION TO PAY

PREPETITION EMPLOYEE

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINUE

WAGES AND BENEFITS (DOC. 8)

 Affects PG&E Corporation

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 Affects both Debtors

All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case,

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Date: February 27, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Location: U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 1 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2

II. FACTS .................................................................................................................................3

A. The collective bargaining agreement requires PG&E to pay a

certain level of wages and benefits ..........................................................................3

1. The negotiated wages and benefits under the collective

bargaining agreement include STIP payments ............................................3

2. The negotiated wages and benefits under the collective

bargaining agreement also include relocation payments

to certain impacted employees.....................................................................4

B. The Debtors have sought authority to continue to pay these

wages and benefits, including STIP payments and relocation

payments ..................................................................................................................4

III. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................5

A. The Debtors have a legal duty to honor the terms of the

collective bargaining agreement until that agreement is modified

or rejected.................................................................................................................6

B. The Debtors are required to comply with state law, which

prohibits any reduction in compensation of employees of a gas

or electrical corporation during the transition period following a

filing for bankruptcy protection...............................................................................8

IV. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................9

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 2 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

I. INTRODUCTION

Engineers and Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20, (“ESC Local 20”), the exclusive

collective bargaining representative of over 3,700 of Debtors’ professional and technical

employees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with the Debtors, hereby submits its

response to the Motion of Debtors Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363(b), and 507 and Fed. R.

Bankr. P. 6003 and 6004 for Interim and Final Authority to (I) Pay Prepetition Wages, Salaries,

Withholding Obligations, and Other Compensation and Benefits; (II) Maintain Employee

Benefits Programs; and (III) Pay Related Administrative Obligations (the “Employee Wages and

Benefits Motion”) (Doc. 8).

ESC Local 20 supports entry of a final order authorizing Debtors to pay prepetition wages,

salaries, withholding obligations and other compensation and benefits, and authorizing the

Debtors to maintain its Employee Wage and Benefits Programs (Doc. 8-1). While ESC Local 20

takes no position on payments to non-represented employees, the Debtors should be authorized to

pay ESC Local 20 members’ wages and benefits, including the STIP payments and relocation

payments required by the collective bargaining agreement between ESC Local 20 and PG&E.

Not only is the payment of these wages and benefits necessary to promote the rehabilitation of the

Debtors, it is also required by law.

The Debtors have a legal duty to honor the terms of the collective bargaining agreement

until that agreement is modified or rejected under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. Because

the Debtors have not followed the procedures laid out in Section 1113 or engaged ESC Local 20

in negotiations regarding modification or termination of its collective bargaining obligations, they

are barred from terminating any of the requirements in the collective bargaining agreement. As

such, the Debtors are required to pay the wages and benefits required by the collective bargaining

agreement, including STIP payments and relocation payments.

Additionally, the Debtors have an ongoing duty to operate in accordance with state law.

The California Public Utilities Code prohibits a gas or electrical company from reducing the

compensation of its non-managerial employees within 180 days following a transition or change

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 3 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

in control, including a filing for bankruptcy protection. Accordingly, the Debtors cannot be

permitted to reduce the total compensation of its non-managerial employees.

II. FACTS

A. The collective bargaining agreement requires PG&E to pay a certain level of wages

and benefits

ESC Local 20 is a labor union that represents 3,700 professional and technical employees

at PG&E, including the engineers, estimators, mappers, project managers, and other professional

and technical employees that have been doing the important work needed to maintain and

modernize the systems and keep the public utility safe.

The terms and conditions of employment for these employees are governed by a collective

bargaining agreement between ESC Local 20 and PG&E. Sperry Decl., Ex. A, Ex. B.

1. The negotiated wages and benefits under the collective bargaining agreement

include STIP payments

The collective bargaining agreement requires PG&E to pay certain employees Short Term

Incentive Plan (STIP) payments as part of the employees’ compensation. Sperry Decl., Ex. A, pp.

viii-x. Approximately 1,200 ESC-represented employees are eligible for these STIP payments.

Sperry Decl., ¶ 5. Pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, the amount of the

STIP payment for each employee is calculated by multiplying that employee’s eligible earnings

by their participation rate, their individual modifier, and the company score. Sperry Decl., Ex. A,

p. viii. For nearly all ESC-represented employees who are eligible for STIP payments, the

participation rate is 10%, meaning that the target level for the STIP payment is 10% of the

employee’s yearly base salary.1Sperry Decl., ¶ 6. That 10% STIP award is then adjusted up or

down by multiplying it by the employee’s individual modifier, which is determined by that

employee’s performance rating from their supervisor, and the company score, which is based on

company-wide metrics related to safety, reliability of the system, and the company’s financial

performance. Sperry Decl., ¶¶ 7-8. The collective bargaining agreement prohibits PG&E from

1

For about 10 employees in “Principal Engineer” classifications, the participation rate is 15%.

The participation rate for ESC-represented employees is lower than the participation rate for

managers. Sperry Decl., ¶ 6.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 4 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

reducing STIP awards based on an employee’s performance issues without first giving the

employee reasonable notice of those issues and an opportunity to improve. Sperry Decl., ¶ 7.

These STIP payments are an important part of the employees’ compensation, which was

bargained for by ESC Local 20. ESC Local 20 members gave up wage increases in exchange for

these payments. Sperry Decl., ¶ 10. In bargaining for the 2012-2015 collective bargaining

agreement, workers gave up a wage increase of 8.25% and received an increase of only 3% to

have STIP phased in over a three year period. Id.; Sperry Decl., Ex. C, pp. viii-ix. This was

widely understood and agreed to be an exchange of base salary for pay at risk. Sperry Decl.,

¶ 10. STIP payments are thus an important part of the wages that the Union bargained for and

won.

2. The negotiated wages and benefits under the collective bargaining agreement also

include relocation payments to certain impacted employees

PG&E and ESC Local 20 also have letters of agreement supplementing the collective

bargaining agreement that require PG&E to pay negotiated relocation payments to Estimators,

Electric Mappers, and Gas Mappers whose positions were moved to new headquarters as a result

of PG&E’s consolidation and reorganization of these functions. Sperry Decl., Exs. D-F. These

payments to impacted employees range from $10,000 to $25,000, and were bargained for by ESC

Local 20 to compensate employees being moved to new locations. Sperry Decl., ¶ 13.

B. The Debtors have sought authority to continue to pay these wages and benefits,

including STIP payments and relocation payments

The Debtors filed their petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on

January 29, 2019. Doc. 1. On the same day, the Debtors filed First Day Motions, including a

motion for interim and final authority to pay prepetition wages and benefits and maintain

employee benefits programs. Doc. 8. As part of that motion, Debtors seek authority to pay

employees the STIP payments they have earned. The Debtors also seek authority to pay the

negotiated relocation payments. Doc. 392.

The Debtors explain that payment of employee obligations is an exercise of sound

business judgment and is necessary to facilitate a successful reorganization. Doc. 8, p. 52. The

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 5 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

STIP payments specifically are necessary to “incentivize strong Employee performance and are

critical to ensuring that Employees stay motivated and reach higher performance standards,”

Doc. 8, p. 14, but they are also part of the compensation package that employees rely on to satisfy

their daily living expenses. Likewise, the relocation payments are “an expected and integral part

of the Union Represented Employees’ compensation arrangements and were negotiated and

agreed to with the Union[] to address cost savings in connection with certain consolidations.”

Doc. 132, p. 5. Employees would be exposed to significant financial difficulties if the Debtors

are not permitted to honor these obligations, and failure to honor the negotiated wages and

benefits would not only impact morale but could also lead to turnover, attrition, and instability at

this critical time in the Chapter 11 Cases, which is a risk that is especially consequential due to

the highly specialized nature of many of the duties that the employees perform and the critical

nature of the Debtors’ business as the sole utility provider to approximately 16 million customers.

Doc. 8, p. 52. Accordingly, the Debtors argue that Court may permit the payment of these

obligations because they are necessary to promote the rehabilitation of the debtor. Doc. 8, pp. 48-

54.

III. ARGUMENT

The Debtors should be authorized to pay ESC-represented employees’ wages and benefits,

including the STIP payments and relocation payments required by the collective bargaining

agreement.

Not only is continuing to pay these wages and benefits within the sound business

judgment of the Debtors, it is also legally required. Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code

prohibits a debtor from terminating any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to

negotiating with the union in good faith, and state law prohibits a gas and electric company from

reducing the total compensation of non-managerial employees during the first 180 days of a

transition period including a bankruptcy.

///

///

///

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 6 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

A. The Debtors have a legal duty to honor the terms of the collective bargaining

agreement until that agreement is modified or rejected

A debtor in possession cannot modify or terminate a collective bargaining agreement

without following the detailed procedure set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1113. This is the exclusive

method of rejecting a collective bargaining agreement. 11 U.S.C. § 1113(a) (providing that a

Chapter 11 debtor may reject a collective bargaining agreement “only in accordance with the

provisions of this section”). Section 1113(f) provides that “[n]o provisions of this title shall be

construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective

bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section.”

“[T]he language employed by Congress in § 1113 is unequivocal.” Adventure Resources,

Inc. v. Holland, 137 F.3d 786, 796 (4th Cir. 1998). “It plainly imposes a legal duty on the debtor

to honor the terms of a collective bargaining agreement ... until that agreement is properly

rejected.” Id.; In re Manor Oak Skilled Nursing Facilities, 201 B.R. 348, 350 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y.

1996) (“[A]ll aspects of a collective bargaining agreement remain in effect and binding until

rejection occurs, including the duty to cure pre-petition arrears.”).

As the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit has explained, “Section 1113 was

enacted to protect employees during the interim between the filing of the bankruptcy petition and

court-supervised modification or ultimate rejection of the CBA. During this period, working

employees benefit the estate. Their rights accrue as services are rendered on the basis provided

for by the CBA.” Teamsters Indus. Sec. Fund v. World Sales (In re World Sales), 183 B.R. 872,

878 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). In In re Tucson Yellow Cab Co., 789 F.2d 701, 704

(9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit explained that the “fair value of the employees’ services” is “set

by the agreement”—the whole package of wages and benefits contained in the CBA. Employees

continue to work for the estate “in the reasonable belief” that the terms of their employment as

laid out in the CBA will remain unchanged, and that they will get the package of wages and

benefits they bargained for. Id. at 705 (holding that contractually required severance payments

were owed in exchange for post-petition work and were entitled to administrative status).

Because Section 1113 provides that “the contract may not be rejected without first complying

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 7 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

with the procedure” in that section, this package of wages and may not be changed prior to

modification or rejection of the collective bargaining agreement. In re World Sales, 183 B.R. at

878. Thus, where employees continue employment post-petition, reasonably believing that they

will receive the wages and benefits contained in the collective bargaining agreement, such wages

and benefits are entitled to administrative status. Id. (holding that post-petition obligations to

provide healthcare coverage beyond the scope of work performed pursuant to terms of a CBA that

had not yet been rejected were entitled to administrative claim status, even though they might not

otherwise meet the standards for an administrative claim); see also In re Colorado Springs

Symphony Orchestra Assn., 308 B.R. 508 (Bankr. D. Colorado 2004) (finding that pursuant to

debtor’s obligation under CBA to pay musicians for minimum number of performances, whether

or not musician played at all such performances, such payments entitled to administrative status

for post-petition period prior to rejection of CBA).

Similarly, in Adventure Resources, the Fourth Circuit made it clear that a debtor “may

not” “continue to reap the benefits of its bargain without concern that the non-debtor party will be

made whole for the debtor’s unfulfilled prepetition obligations.” Adventure Resources, Inc. v.

Holland, 137 F.3d at 790. Thus, when the debtor continued to use the labor of employees under

the collective bargaining agreement, it was obligated to fulfill its end of the bargain, including its

contractual obligation to pay the pension funds. Id.

Here, the Debtors have not followed the § 1113 procedures to reject the collective

bargaining agreement. Because the collective bargaining agreement has not been modified or

rejected, the Debtors are obligated to honor its terms and conditions. The Debtors are not free to

continue to use bargaining unit labor and reap benefits under the collective bargaining agreement

while unilaterally modifying the CBA’s requirement to pay a certain level of wages and benefits,

including STIP payments and relocation payments. In exchange for the postpetition labor the

Debtors are using under the collective bargaining agreement, they are bound to pay the

compensation required by the collective bargaining agreement. These STIP and relocation

payments are entitled to administrative expense priority and should be paid in the ordinary course.

///

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 8 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

B. The Debtors are required to comply with state law, which prohibits any reduction in

compensation of employees of a gas or electrical corporation during the transition

period following a filing for bankruptcy protection

The Debtors are required to operate the system in compliance with applicable state law.

Federal law is absolutely clear on this point. Section 959(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code

provides that “a debtor in possession shall manage and operate the property in his possession . . .

according to the requirements of the valid laws of the State in which such property is situated.”

Among the state laws regulating the operation of the system, California Public Utilities

Code section 854.2 prohibits any reduction in compensation of non-managerial employees of an

electrical or gas corporation in the 180 days following a change in control, including a filing for

bankruptcy.2

In enacting Public Utilities Code section 854.2, the California Legislature made findings

that “an adequately sized workforce of experienced electric and gas utility employees with the

appropriate training and skills, as well as the knowledge of an electric or gas utility’s facilities

and equipment, is essential to the safe, efficient, and uninterrupted provision of electrical and gas

services” and that “[s]afe and reliable electric and gas utility service is vital to public health,

public safety, air quality, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.” Cal. Pub. Util. Code

§ 854.2(a). The state therefore “has a compelling interest in ensuring that when there is a change

in the ownership or control of an electrical corporation or gas corporation, the new employer

maintains a qualified and knowledgeable workforce with the ability to ensure safe, efficient,

2

Specifically, California Public Utilities Code section 854.2(c)(1) provides:

[A] successor employer shall retain all covered employees for at least the transition

period following a change of control, unless the commission approves a reduction

in the workforce .... During the transition period, the successor employer shall not

reduce the total compensation of a covered employee.

The statute defines “change of control” to include “any material change in ownership of the

electric corporation or gas corporation ... or any filing seeking bankruptcy protection.” Cal. Pub.

Util. Code § 854.2(b)(1). The “transition period” is the “period of 180 days immediately

following the effective date of a change of control.” Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 854.2(b)(8). A

“successor employer” is “the person who controls the electrical corporation or gas corporation

after the change of control.” Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 854.2(b)(6). And “covered employees”

include all individuals who have been “employed by an electrical corporation or gas corporation

for at least 90 days immediately before a change of control” but do not include “managerial,

supervisory, or confidential employee[s],” “temporary employee[s],” or “part-time employee[s]

who ha[ve] worked less than 20 hours per week.” Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 854.2(b)(2). Hence, a

debtor in possession is barred from reducing the total compensation of non-managerial employees

for the 180 days following the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 9 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

reliable, and continuous service to California consumers and communities.” Id. Because the

statute is reasonably designed to protect public health and safety, it is not preempted by the

Bankruptcy Code and the debtor in possession must comply with the law. Midlantic National

Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 507 (1986)

(Bankruptcy Code does not preempt “a state statute or regulation that is reasonably designed to

protect the public health or safety”).

Accordingly, the Debtors are prohibited from reducing the total compensation of any of

their non-managerial employees, like the ESC Local 20 members here, for the 180 days following

the Petition Date.

The negotiated relocation payments are “an expected and integral part of the Union

Represented Employees’ compensation arrangements.” Doc. 132, p. 5. As such, the Debtors are

barred from reducing this aspect of compensation. Likewise, the STIP payments to ESCrepresented employees are an important piece of this total compensation. The workers gave up

wage increases in exchange for these payments, and the STIP payments are routinely treated as

part of the employees’ compensation during negotiations over compensation and in comparison to

compensation at other companies (where annual bonuses are also a regular part of total

compensation for salaried workers). Sperry Decl., ¶¶ 10-11. The Debtors also treat STIP

payments as part of total compensation in their General Rate Case filing with the Public Utilities

Commission.3 Because STIP payments are part of total compensation, a reduction or failure to

pay these STIP payments would violate Public Utilities Code section 854.2.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, ESC Local 20 respectfully requests that the Court grant the

Debtors’ Motion to Pay Prepetition Employee Obligations and Continue Wages and Benefits with

3

PG&E’s General Rate Case is publicly accessible on PG&E’s website, and a portion of the

evidence related to STIP is available at https://pgera.azurewebsites.net/Regulation/Validate

DocAccess?docID=545392 There, PG&E explains that, “in accordance with [the Public Utility]

Commission[’s] directives” it hired a consulting firm to analyze total compensation, measuring

total cash compensation—including both “base salary” and “short-term incentive awards”—plus

the value of employee benefits. Id. at pp. 59-60 of the PDF.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 10 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

respect to all ESC-represented employees, and permit the Debtors to pay these amounts in the

ordinary course of business.

Dated: February 20, 2019 WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

/s/ Emily P. Rich

By: EMILY P. RICH

Attorneys for Creditor Engineers and Scientists of

California, Local 20, IFPTE

147061\1011285

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 11 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I am a citizen of the United States and an employee in the County of Alameda, State of

California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business

address is1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200, Alameda, California 94501.

I hereby certify that on February 20, 2019, I electronically filed the forgoing ESC LOCAL

20’S RESPONSE TO DEBTORS’ MOTION TO PAY PREPETITION EMPLOYEE

OBLIGATIONS AND CONTINUE WAGES AND BENEFITS (DOC. 8) with the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court, Northern District California, by using the Court’s CM/ECF system.

Pursuant to controlling General Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served

by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On February 20, 2019, I checked the

CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the

following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email

addresses stated below:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

On February 20, 2019, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known

addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy

thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed

as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be

completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

I certify under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed at Alameda,

California, on February 20, 2019.

/s/ Stephanie Mizuhara

Stephanie Mizuhara

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 12 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

SERVICE LIST

• Richard L. Antognini rlalawyer@yahoo.com, hallonaegis@gmail.com

• Herb Baer hbaer@primeclerk.com, ecf@primeclerk.com

• Todd M. Bailey Todd.Bailey@ftb.ca.gov

• Kathryn E. Barrett keb@svlg.com, amt@svlg.com

• Ronald S. Beacher rbeacher@pryorcashman.com

• Hagop T. Bedoyan hbedoyan@kleinlaw.com, ecf@kleinlaw.com

• Peter J. Benvenutti pbenvenutti@kellerbenvenutti.com

• Robert Berens rberens@smtdlaw.com, sr@smtdlaw.com

• Heinz Binder heinz@bindermalter.com

• W. Steven Bryant , molly.batiste-debose@lockelord.com

• Christina Lin Chen christina.chen@morganlewis.com, christina.lin.chen@gmail.com

• Shawn M. Christianson schristianson@buchalter.com

• Robert N.H. Christmas rchristmas@nixonpeabody.com,

nyc.managing.clerk@nixonpeabody.com

• Alicia Clough aclough@loeb.com

• Marc Cohen mscohen@loeb.com

• Keith J. Cunningham , rkelley@pierceatwood.com

• James D. Curran jcurran@wolkincurran.com, vsimmons@wolkincurran.com

• Jonathan R. Doolittle jdoolittle@reedsmith.com, bgonshorowski@reedsmith.com

• Jennifer V. Doran jdoran@hinckleyallen.com

• David V. Duperrault dvd@svlg.com, edn@svlg.com

• Kevin M. Eckhardt keckhardt@hunton.com, candonian@huntonak.com

• Joseph A. Eisenberg JAE1900@yahoo.com

• Sally J. Elkington sally@elkshep.com, ecf@elkshep.com

• G. Larry Engel larry@engeladvice.com

• Krista M. Enns kenns@beneschlaw.com

• Michael P. Esser michael.esser@kirkland.com, michael-esser-3293@ecf.pacerpro.com.

• Richard W. Esterkin richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com,

sue.reimers@morganlewis.com

• Joseph Kyle Feist jfeistesq@gmail.com, info@norcallawgroup.net

• James J. Ficenec James.Ficenec@ndlf.com, caroline.pfahl@ndlf.com

• John D. Fiero jfiero@pszjlaw.com, ocarpio@pszjlaw.com

• Kimberly S. Fineman kfineman@nutihart.com, nwhite@nutihart.com

• Stephen D. Finestone sfinestone@fhlawllp.com

• Jonathan Forstot , john.murphy@troutman.com

• Gregg M. Galardi gregg.galardi@ropesgray.com

• Richard L. Gallagher richard.gallagher@ropesgray.com

• Barry S. Glaser bglaser@swesq.com

• Gabriel I. Glazer gglazer@pszjlaw.com

• Gabrielle Glemann gabrielle.glemann@stoel.com, rene.alvin@stoel.com

• Eric D. Goldberg eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, eric-goldberg-1103@ecf.pacerpro.com

• Richard H. Golubow rgolubow@wcghlaw.com, jmartinez@WCGHLaw.com

• Mark A. Gorton mgorton@boutinjones.com, cdomingo@boutininc.com

• Mark A. Gorton mgorton@boutininc.com, cdomingo@boutininc.com

• Debra I. Grassgreen dgrassgreen@pszjlaw.com, hphan@pszjlaw.com

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 13 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

• Oren Buchanan Haker oren.haker@stoel.com, rene.alvin@stoel.com

• Robert G. Harris rob@bindermalter.com

• Christopher H. Hart chart@nutihart.com, nwhite@nutihart.com

• Bryan L. Hawkins bryan.hawkins@stoel.com, Sharon.witkin@stoel.com

• Jan M Hayden jhayden@bakerdonelson.com, gmitchell@bakerdonelson.com

• Jennifer C. Hayes jhayes@fhlawllp.com

• Stephen E. Hessler, P.C. , jozette.chong@kirkland.com

• Michael R. Hogue hoguem@gtlaw.com, frazierl@gtlaw.com

• David Holtzman david.holtzman@hklaw.com

• Marsha Houston mhouston@reedsmith.com, hvalencia@reedsmith.com

• Mark V. Isola mvi@sbj-law.com

• J. Eric Ivester , Andrea.Bates@skadden.com

• Ivan C. Jen ivan@icjenlaw.com

• Gregory K. Jones GJones@dykema.com, cacossano@dykema.com

• Roberto J. Kampfner rkampfner@whitecase.com, mco@whitecase.com

• Robert B. Kaplan rbk@jmbm.com

• Tobias S. Keller tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com, pbenvenutti@kellerbenvenutti.com

• Lynette C. Kelly lynette.c.kelly@usdoj.gov, ustpregion17.oa.ecf@usdoj.gov

• Gerald P. Kennedy gerald.kennedy@procopio.com, laj@procopio.com

• Samuel M. Kidder skidder@ktbslaw.com

• Marc Kieselstein , carrie.oppenheim@kirkland.com

• Jane Kim jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com

• Thomas F. Koegel tkoegel@crowell.com

• Andy S. Kong kong.andy@arentfox.com, Yvonne.Li@arentfox.com

• Alan W. Kornberg , akornberg@paulweiss.com

• Jeffrey C. Krause jkrause@gibsondunn.com, psantos@gibsondunn.com

• Michael Thomas Krueger michael.krueger@ndlf.com, Havilyn.lee@ndlf.com

• Richard A. Lapping rich@trodellalapping.com

• Matthew A. Lesnick matt@lesnickprince.com, jmack@lesnickprince.com

• David B. Levant david.levant@stoel.com, rene.alvin@stoel.com

• Andrew H. Levin alevin@wcghlaw.com, vcorbin@wcghlaw.com

• John William Lucas jlucas@pszjlaw.com, ocarpio@pszjlaw.com

• Jane Luciano jane-luciano@comcast.net

• Kerri Lyman klyman@irell.com, lgauthier@irell.com

• John H. MacConaghy macclaw@macbarlaw.com,

smansour@macbarlaw.com;kmuller@macbarlaw.com

• Iain A. Macdonald iain@macfern.com, ecf@macfern.com

• Michael W. Malter michael@bindermalter.com

• David P. Matthews jrhoades@thematthewslawfirm.com,

aharrison@thematthewslawfirm.com

• Hugh M. McDonald , john.murphy@troutman.com

• C. Luckey McDowell luckey.mcdowell@bakerbotts.com

• Frank A. Merola lacalendar@stroock.com, mmagzamen@stroock.com

• Matthew D. Metzger belvederelegalecf@gmail.com

• M. David Minnick dminnick@pillsburylaw.com, docket@pillsburylaw.com

• Thomas C. Mitchell tcmitchell@orrick.com,

Dcmanagingattorneysoffice@ecf.courtdrive.com

• John A. Moe john.moe@dentons.com, glenda.spratt@dentons.com

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 14 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

• David W. Moon lacalendar@stroock.com, mmagzamen@stroock.com

• Courtney L. Morgan morgan.courtney@pbgc.gov

• Joshua D. Morse Joshua.Morse@dlapiper.com, joshua-morse-0092@ecf.pacerpro.com

• Thomas G. Mouzes tmouzes@boutinjones.com, cdomingo@boutininc.com

• Peter S. Munoz pmunoz@reedsmith.com, gsandoval@reedsmith.com

• Michael S. Myers myersms@ballardspahr.com, hartt@ballardspahr.com

• David L. Neale dln@lnbrb.com

• David L. Neale dln@lnbyb.com

• David Neier dneier@winston.com

• Melissa T. Ngo ngo.melissa@pbgc.gov, efile@pbgc.gov

• Gregory C. Nuti gnuti@nutihart.com, nwhite@nutihart.com

• Abigail O'Brient aobrient@mintz.com, docketing@mintz.com

• Office of the U.S. Trustee / SF USTPRegion17.SF.ECF@usdoj.gov

• Aram Ordubegian Ordubegian.Aram@ArentFox.com

• Gabriel Ozel Gabriel.Ozel@troutman.com, tsinger@houser-law.com

• Amy S. Park amy.park@skadden.com, alissa.turnipseed@skadden.com

• Donna Taylor Parkinson donna@parkinsonphinney.com

• Paul J. Pascuzzi ppascuzzi@ffwplaw.com, JNiemann@ffwplaw.com

• Valerie Bantner Peo vbantnerpeo@buchalter.com

• Danielle A. Pham danielle.pham@usdoj.gov

• Thomas R. Phinney tom@parkinsonphinney.com

• R. Alexander Pilmer alexander.pilmer@kirkland.com, keith.catuara@kirkland.com

• M. Ryan Pinkston rpinkston@seyfarth.com, jmcdermott@seyfarth.com

• Estela O. Pino epino@epinolaw.com, staff@epinolaw.com

• Mark D. Poniatowski ponlaw@ponlaw.com

• Christopher E. Prince cprince@lesnickprince.com

• Douglas B. Provencher dbp@provlaw.com

• Lary Alan Rappaport lrappaport@proskauer.com, PHays@proskauer.com

• Justin E. Rawlins jrawlins@winston.com, justin-rawlins-0284@ecf.pacerpro.com

• Emily P. Rich erich@unioncounsel.net, bankruptcycourtnotices@unioncounsel.net

• Christopher O. Rivas crivas@reedsmith.com, chris-rivas-8658@ecf.pacerpro.com

• Lacey Rochester lrochester@bakerdonelson.com, gmitchell@bakerdonelson.com

• Gregory A. Rougeau grougeau@brlawsf.com

• Nanette D. Sanders nanette@ringstadlaw.com, becky@ringstadlaw.com

• Sunny S. Sarkis , dawn.forgeur@stoel.com

• David B. Shemano dshemano@pwkllp.com

• James A. Shepherd jim@elkshep.com, ecf@elkshep.com

• Wayne A. Silver w_silver@sbcglobal.net, ws@waynesilverlaw.com

• Dania Slim dania.slim@pillsburylaw.com, melinda.hernandez@pillsburylaw.com

• Alan D. Smith adsmith@perkinscoie.com, al-smith-9439@ecf.pacerpro.com

• Jan D. Sokol jdsokol@lawssl.com, dwright@lawssl.com

• Bennett L. Spiegel blspiegel@jonesday.com

• Michael St. James ecf@stjames-law.com

• David M. Stern dstern@ktbslaw.com

• Meagan S. Tom Meagan.tom@lockelord.com, autodocket@lockelord.com

• Edward Tredinnick etredinnick@grmslaw.com

• Victor A. Vilaplana vavilaplana@foley.com, rhurst@foley.com

• Marta Villacorta marta.villacorta@usdoj.gov

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 15 of

16
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

ESC LOCAL 20’S RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS MOTION (DOC. 8)

Case No. 19-30088 DM

WEINBERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200

Alameda, California 94501

(510) 337-1001

• John A. Vos InvalidEMailECFonly@gmail.com, PrivateECFNotice@gmail.com

• Riley C. Walter ecf@W2LG.com

• Philip S. Warden philip.warden@pillsburylaw.com, candy.kleiner@pillsburylaw.com

• Genevieve G. Weiner gweiner@gibsondunn.com

• Joseph M. Welch jwelch@buchalter.com, dcyrankowski@buchalter.com

• Eric R. Wilson kdwbankruptcydepartment@kelleydrye.com, ewilson@kelleydrye.com

• Kimberly S. Winick kwinick@clarktrev.com, knielsen@clarktrev.com

• Rebecca J. Winthrop rebecca.winthrop@nortonrosefulbright.com,

evette.rodriguez@nortonrosefulbright.com

• David Wirt david.wirt@hklaw.com, denise.harmon@hklaw.com

• Ryan A. Witthans rwitthans@fhlawllp.com, rwitthans@fhlawllp.com

• Christopher Kwan Shek Wong christopher.wong@arentfox.com

• Kirsten A. Worley kw@wlawcorp.com, admin@wlawcorp.com

• Andrew Yaphe andrew.yaphe@davispolk.com, lit.paralegals.mp@davispolk.com

VIA U.S. MAIL

Max Africk

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Kevin Bostel

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Matthew Goren

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Andriana Georgallas

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

David A. Herman

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

85 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Stuart J. Goldring

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Ave.

New York, NY 10153

Stephen Karotkin

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Kevin Kramer

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

John Nolan

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Jessica Liou

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Kevin J. Orsini

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

85 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Omid H. Nasab

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

85 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Ray C. Schrock

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Theodore Tsekerides

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

Paul H. Zumbro

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

85 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 501 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 14:30:06 Page 16 of

16