UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLARD L. SLOAN, EUGENE J.

WINNINGHAM, and JAMES L. KELLEY, 

on behalf of themselves and a similarly 

situated class, Case No. 09-cv-10918

Hon. Paul D. Borman

Plaintiffs, Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub

v. Class Action

BORGWARNER, INC., BORGWARNER 

FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLANS and

BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED 

TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________/

EXHIBIT 11 

TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AS TO LIABILITY

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 1 of 130 Pg ID 5288
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

r 16, 2011 

2 

3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM L. SLOAN, EUGENE J. 

4 WINNINGHAM, JAMES L. KELLEY, 

on behalf of themselves and a 

5 s larly situated class, 

6 Plaintiffs, 

7 -vs8 BORGWARNER, INC., BORGWARNER 

FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLANS, and 

9 BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED 

TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS, INC., 

10 

Defendants. 

11 

No. 09-cv-l0918 

12 Deposition of GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKY, taken before 

13 DONNA L. POLICICCHIO, C.S.R., and Notary Public, pursuant 

14 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United 

15 States District Courts rtaining to the taking of 

16 depositions, at 18335 LaGrange Road, Tinley Park, 

17 Illinois, commencing at 9:36 a.m., on the 16th day of 

18 November, 2011. 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 2 of 130 Pg ID 5289
1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 011 

the 

The we present 

110wing couns 1: 

KLIMIST, McKNIGHT, SALE, 

McCLOW & CANZANO, P.C. by 

MR. DAVID R. RADTKE 

400 Galleria 

Sui e 117 

ficentre 

k 

1d, MMi igan 48034-8460 

(248) 354-9650 

dradtke@krnsrnc.com 

on behalf of the Plaintiffs; 

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP by 

MR. BOBBY R. BURCHFIELD and 

MR. JOSHUA D. ROGACZEWSKI 

600 Thirteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005-3096 

(202) 756-8000 

bburchfi d@rnwe.com 

jrogaczews @rnwe.com 

on behalf of the Defendants. 

14 ALSO PRESENT: MS. MARLENE D. FISCHER 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

* * * * * * 

Page 2 

o this deposition 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 3 of 130 Pg ID 5290
GEORGE TURCZYNOW 

1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16, 20 1 

EXAMI 

Mr. 

t 49 

ibit 50 

ibit 51 

Exh it 52 

ibit 53 

ibit 54 

Exhibit 55 

Exhibit 56 

Exhibit 57 

Exhibit 58 

TION 

Z 

r 16" 20 1 

ION 

* * * * * * 

EXHIBITS 

Document tes labeled 

UAW 000001 - UAW 000063 

Hourly Group Insurance Program, 

ef ctive 4/1/83 

Reti Group Insurance Program, 

ef ctive 1/1/85 

Position Statement 

Letter dated 8/7/86 from 

Mr. Boyle to Mr. Smith 

Letter dated 12/8/89 from 

Mr. Burghgraef to Mr. Botsford 

Fax dated 2/14/89 from Mr. Nuerge 

to Mr. Turczynowsky 

Cover page titled UAW Local 287's 

Appendix Support of its Motion 

for Summary Judgment, etc.; memo 

dated 3/24/87; draft insurance 

booklet 

Document dated 9/14/92 to 

Mr. Turczynowski 

Memo dated 6/24/93 from 

Mr. Turczynowski to Mr. Nuerge 

(Cont'd) 

3 

4 

PAGE 

36 

37 

38 

40 

41 

50 

60 

62 

87 

91 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 4 of 130 Pg ID 5291
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

r 16, 0 1 

I TS 'd): 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

it 9 

it 60 

it 61 

t 62 

ibit 63 

ibit 64 

ibit 65 

Exhibit 66 

Exhibit 67 

Exhibit 68 

Exhibit 69 

Exhibit 70 

Memo 

Mr. 

Memo t 

9/ 4/9 

to 

12/5/96 

to Mr. Turczynowsky 

. Nue 

Mr. Nuer 

E-ma 1 Mr. to 

Mr. czynowsy re ft of 1998 

ly insurance highlights 

Fax dated 11/10/00 from Mr. Nuerge 

to Mr. Turczynowsky 

Exce s from t "Agre on 

Insurances and Pensions," 11/28/00 

Handwritten notes dated 3/19/01 

Base an/Major Medical Benefits 

r Muncie Hourly Retirees, 

December 1989 

tter dat 12/18/95 from 

Mr. Turczynowsky to Mr. Dandelske 

th attachment 

Letter dated 12/16/96 om 

Mr. Turczynowsky to Mr. Dandelske 

with attachment 

Letter dat 11/17/97 from 

Mr. Turczynowsky to Mr. Dandelske 

with attachments 

Letter dated 11/13/98 from 

Mr. Turczynowsky to Mr. Dandelske 

with attachment 

Letter dated 12/9/99 from 

Mr. Studlow to Mr. Arquette with 

attachment 

(Cont'd) 

93 

99 

104 

105 

107 

108 

110 

111 

112 

114 

115 

115 

4 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 5 of 130 Pg ID 5292
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 011 

1 

2 

ITS (Cont'd): 

it 71 Le ter t 11/7/00 

Mr. czynows to Mr. tte 

4 atta s 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

it 72 

it 73 

ibit 74 

it 75 

Letter dat 

Mr. Turcz 

with ta 

Letter dat 

11/27/01 

ky to Mr. 

s 

om 

11/26/02 from 

tte 

Mr. Turczynowsky to Mr. Arquet 

with attachment 

tter t 10/2/03 

Mr. Turczynowsky to Mr. Arquette 

with attachments 

E-mail dated 11/1/04 from 

Mr. Turczynowsky to Mr. Arquette 

116 

116 

117 

118 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

with attachments 118 

* * * * * * 

5 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 6 of 130 Pg ID 5293
1 

TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 01 

TURCZYNOWSKY, 

2 called a tness he in, first duly sworn, 

3 was upon oral inte ories and testifi as 

4 follows: 

5 EXAMINATION 

6 BY MR. RADTKE: 

7 Q Good morning. 

8 A Good morning. 

9 Q Mr. Turczynowsky 

10 A Yes. 

11 Q -- am I pronouncing it correctly? 

12 A That's correct. 

13 Q My name is d Radtke. We met briefly. 

14 You're here pursuant to a subpoena. I appreciate 

15 your patience and your will ss to come. 

16 I'm going to ask you a series of questions. 

17 If I ask you a question that's confusing or you don't 

18 understand, please let me know and I'll try to 

19 rephrase it in a way that we both understand. If you 

20 would like to take a break, please feel free to let 

21 me know. We can take a break whenever you would like 

22 to, okay? 

23 A Thank you. 

24 Q I represent a group of retirees and surviving 

25 spouses of retirees who were hourly employees who 

6 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 7 of 130 Pg ID 5294
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

16, all 

wor t Bo r ant e, I ana. 

y r ti r 27, 1989, early 

3 2009, just so know t frame I'm 

4 tal ng and who I resent. 

5 d you state current address, 

6 ea e? 

7 A 19810 1 , T-E-L-E-R-U-D-E, only one R, 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Lane, Tel Lane, Mo , M-O-K-E-N-A, 

III is 60448. 

Q Are currently loyed? 

A No. 

Q Could you ve me your educational 

13 ckground, Mr. Turczynowsky? 

14 A I graduated the University of Illinois, 

15 Chicago, in 1971 with a degree in electrical 

16 ering. 

17 Q Do you have any other education beyond that? 

18 A No. 

19 Q You were employed for BorgWarner, is that 

20 accurate? 

21 

22 

23 

24 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

I was employed at BorgWarner? 

Yes. 

Yes. 

What was the exact name of the entity you 

25 were employed by, if you remember? 

7 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 8 of 130 Pg ID 5295
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

16, 011 

Page 8 

A t are we tal ? 

Q Let's start start 

A rgWarner ration in 1972. 

Q er you ted University of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 Illinois, was BorgWarner first ace t you 

6 wor ? 

7 A No. 

8 Q Where did you work between your graduation 

9 and your employment at BorgWarner? 

10 A ctory Insurance Association, also known as 

11 Industrial Risk Insurers. 

12 Q When did you work re? 

13 A Following graduation through September 

14 of 1972. 

15 Q How long did you work for BorgWarner 

16 Corporation? 

17 

18 

19 

A As a legal entity? 

Q Yeah. 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection to form and 

20 foundation. Go ahead, you may answer. 

21 A From 1972 through 1987. 

22 BY MR. RADTKE: 

23 Q Between 1972 and 1987, what was your job 

24 title or titles? 

25 A Initially I was responsible in the Risk 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 9 of 130 Pg ID 5296
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

6, 0 

rtment of Bo rner r plant and 

e a ty, rty prot ction In 

1978, I was promot o mana r of insurance In 

1 e ts rtment. equent to 

t, I also assumed on or 1985 respons lity 

for sion ans. carries you through 1987. 

Q title was mana r? 

A Mana r of group insurance and pensions. 

Q What happened with re ct to BorgWarner 

ration in 1987? 

A The company went through a leveraged buyout. 

Q And d another entity or another - was 

there a name change? What was result let me 

14 just stop and rephrase. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

What was the re t of the leveraged buyout? 

MR. BURCHFI Object to form. 

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 

MR. BURCHFIELD: You may answer. 

A surviving companies became BorgWarner 

20 Protective Services and BorgWarner Automotive. 

21 BY MR. RADTKE: 

22 Q Did you retain your employment? 

23 A I did. 

24 Q With which entity? 

25 A Protective Services. 

9 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 10 of 130 Pg ID 5297
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 011 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Q twas j Bo rner Protective 

S ces? 

A Mana r, group urance and sions. 

Q t type of business was BorgWarner 

Protect Services in? 

A ey were involved wi alarm se ces and 

security se ces, rd se ces. 

Q d BorgWarner Protective Se ces have any 

9 relationship with the plant in Muncie, Indiana? 

10 MR. FIELD: Object to rm foundation. 

11 You may answer. Unless I specifically tell you not 

12 to answer, you should answer question. These are 

13 objections for the record. 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

A Please repeat the question. 

MR. RADTKE: Could you --

(From the record above, the reporter read 

the following: 

"Q Did BorgWarner Protective 

Services have any relationship with the 

plant in Muncie, Indiana?") 

THE WITNESS: No. 

22 BY MR. RADTKE: 

23 Q How long did you work for BorgWarner 

24 Protective Services? 

25 A I believe it was through 1993. 

10 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 11 of 130 Pg ID 5298
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

TURe YNOWSKI 

011 

Q n 199 d 10 r ? 

A s . 

Q who d become emplo by? 

A Bo rner omotive. 

Q t was job title at BorgWarner 

tomotive? 

A Mana r of 10 e benefits. 

Q How long d you hold t position? 

A Approximately e ars. I beg your 

rox tely five years. 

Q il approx ely 1998? 

A imately. 

Q Did you move to another position within 

14 BorgWarner Automotive? 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

Yes. 

What was that position? 

Director of group benefits and pensions. 

How long d you hold that position? 

Approximately two years. 

Did your employment change? 

Yes. 

And what did your job title become? 

Director of employee benefits in about the 

24 year 2000. 

25 Q How long did you hold that position? 

11 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 12 of 130 Pg ID 5299
GEORGE TURC YNOWSK 

November 1, 0 1 

1 A irement e in y 0 2005. 

Q Goi ck to it a er levera 

3 tween BorgWarner Protective Se ces and 

4 Bo rner Automotive, was Muncie ant rt of 

5 Bo rner Automotive? 

6 A It was a sidiary of versifi 

7 T ssion Products; is to s rsified 

8 T ssion Products was a s idia of BorgWarner 

9 Automotive. 

10 Q Do you know how long the Muncie plant was a 

11 subsidiary of BorgWarner Automotive? 

12 A I do not. 

13 Q During your employment at BorgWarner 

14 Corporation and then the subsequent employment that 

15 you had through July of 2005, did you have any 

16 relationship with benefits provided to employees and 

17 retirees of the BorgWarner plant in Muncie, Indiana? 

18 A Clari what you mean by "bene ts provided." 

19 Q Health care benefits or pension benefits. 

20 A Did I personally have any responsibility? 

21 Q Yes. 

22 A No. 

23 Q Were you ever involved in collective 

24 bargaining between BorgWarner DTP and the UAW for the 

25 Muncie hourly employees? 

12 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 13 of 130 Pg ID 5300
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 16, 0 1 

1 A s . 

2 Q In 

3 bargaini? 

ars were 

4 A 1992, 1995, 1998, 

involved In collective 

2000 approximately. 

5 Q d ining occur approximately in the 

6 ar 2000? 

7 

8 

9 

10 

A s . 

Q 1 nt with BorgWarner 

Protective Se ces between 1987 and 1993, were you 

invo in collective rga ng re rding the 

11 Muncie plant and the UAW? 

12 A I was not present at bargaining sessions 

13 between 1987 and 1989. 

14 Q Did you have any responsibility with respect 

15 to the bene ts that were negotiated between the UAW 

16 and BorgWarner between 1987 and 1989? 

17 A Clarify "responsible." 

18 Q Did you have any role with respect to health 

19 care benefits or pension bene ts? 

20 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm. 

21 A To the extent that benefits that were 

22 negotiated were then distributed to the various and 

23 sundry administrative bodies that were going to be 

24 responsible for managing those programs, 

25 administering those programs. 

13 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 14 of 130 Pg ID 5301
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

r 16, 0 1 

Q You r s i l Y wi re ct to 

rsing se contents? 

4 A Yes, rsi , making the insurance 

5 ies are t administrators avail e, what 

6 nef t evels are goi to f making 

7 trustees aware of what new benefits levels are 

8 

9 

o 

11 

12 

wi 

I 

re 

Q 

A 

Q 

ct to the sion 

t continued even when you were 

at BorgWarner Protective Se ces? 

tIs correct. 

And during your employment at BorgWarner 

13 Protective Se ces, the Muncie plant was part of 

14 BorgWarner omotive? 

15 A I believe so. 

16 

17 

Q So you had a role that crossed between 

BorgWarner Protective Se ces and BorgWarner 

18 Automotive? 

19 MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection to form and 

20 foundation. 

21 A A service bureau role, yes. 

22 BY MR. RADTKE: 

23 Q Could you explain what a service bureau role 

24 means? 

25 A We provided certain expertise relating to 

14 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 15 of 130 Pg ID 5302
ZYNOWS 

November 

e matters r Protect Se 

as well as Bo rner Automo ive. 

Q d Bo rner Automot ve also have a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

ne ts rtment tween 1987 1993? 

A Where? cifically re? 

Q y in Muncie? 

A y a local r of fits in 

Muncie. 

Q And re were you employed physically? 

10 was location n you wor d for all of the 

11 BorgWarner entities between 1972 and 2005? 

Chicago. 

Page 

ces 

What 

12 

13 

A 

Q What was located in Chicago as it relates to 

14 BorgWarner? 

15 

16 

A 

Q 

Corporate adquarters. 

What was corporate adquarters' 

17 responsibility as it related to health care benefits 

18 for the BorgWarner hou y employees at Muncie, 

19 Indiana? 

20 

21 

A 

Q 

I can't speak to that. 

What role did you have with respect to the 

22 hourly employees' health care benefits that worked in 

23 Muncie, Indiana? 

24 A As I previously stated, we had a 

25 responsibility for making sure that whatever benefits 

15 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 16 of 130 Pg ID 5303
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 16, 2011 

we p t-1unc ,DTP e, were i to be 

rty nist red various and s 

3 strative 0 izations t t were 

4 res sibility of co rate, my re ibility, to 

r various units, including Muncie. 

6 Q What other units d you provi se ces r 

7 t were rt of BorgWarner Automotive? 

8 A 1 units t were rt of BorgWarner 

9 Protective as well as BorgWarner Automotive during 

10 t riod of '87 through about 1993. 

11 Q BorgWarner Automotive had other plants and 

12 lities 0 r than Muncie, Indiana, during that 

13 t frame of '87 to '93? 

14 A Yes. 

15 Q Where else did they have plants and 

16 facilities? 

17 MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection. Foundation. 

18 A Michigan, New York, Illinois. There were 

19 numerous locations. I just do not recall them all at 

20 this point. 

21 BY MR. RADTKE: 

22 Q In 1993 when you became employed at 

23 BorgWarner Automot , did you leave your employment 

24 at BorgWarner Protective Services? 

25 A Yes. 

16 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 17 of 130 Pg ID 5304
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 1 , 2011 

Page 17 

1 Q d Bor r Protec ive Services continue 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

to rate a r Ie t? 

A Yes. 

Q Did cont to responsibilities 

with re ct to nistration of heal care 

nefits r r rner ective Se ces 

1 es? 

A No. 

Q Did you have any responsibility r 

est fits -- I'm to withdraw that 

11 question. 

12 When you went to rner in 1993, 

13 BorgWarner Automotive, to clari ,what was your 

14 what were your job duties as the manager of employee 

15 benefits? 

16 A Essentially same as they were in the 

17 period between '87 and '93. 

18 

19 

Q 

A 

And what were they? 

To provide strategic planning, guidance, 

20 administrative protocols with respect to -- and 

21 analysis -- financial analysis of the various and 

22 sundry benefit programs for the company. 

23 Q Including those programs that were in place 

24 in the BorgWarner facility in Muncie, Indiana? 

25 A Yes. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 18 of 130 Pg ID 5305
GEORGE TURe YNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 01 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Q You t ti i d earlier t were invol 

in contract ne tiations UAW its 

Local 287 in e, Indiana, in 1992, 1995, 1998, 

tely 2000, correct? 

A Yes. 

Q Were you actually ically at negotiations 

ng each one of se years? 

A On an as-needed sis. I was not there at 

9 all times. 

10 Q When were you present lng negotiations? 

11 Was re a certain subject matter that you were 

12 sent r negotiations? 

13 A Yes. 

14 Q What subject matter or matters were they? 

15 A Employee bene t related matters. 

16 Q Does that include health insurance? 

17 A Yes. 

18 Q Pension? 

19 A Yes. 

20 Q fe insurance? 

21 A Yes. 

22 Q Were you involved in negotiating the health 

23 insurance agreement between the UAW and BorgWarner at 

24 the Muncie plant during the years that you mentioned? 

25 A The direct responsibility for negotiations 

18 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 19 of 130 Pg ID 5306
1 

TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 2011 

rest d 

loca 

HR 

i 

senior HR sentative 

se ods. I was 

3 re to provi consult at advice and guidance 

4 wi re ct to se matters. 

5 Q So were invo negotiations of those 

6 matters 

7 MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection to rm. 

8 BY MR. RADTKE: 

9 Q -- by ing present? 

10 MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection to form. 

11 A I was present. 

12 BY MR. RADTKE: 

13 Q Did BorgWarner DTP management at the Muncie 

14 ant have the authority to rna agreements without 

15 approval of BorgWarner Automotive? 

16 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to foundation. 

17 A I believe that changes, programs probably 

18 were a collaborative effort with respect to local 

19 management, subsidiary management, and whatever the 

20 protocols called for with regard to the cha of 

21 command within the organization. 

22 BY MR. RADTKE: 

23 Q When you say changes and I think you said 

24 programs, what are you referring to? 

25 A Any benefits that would have been negotiated 

19 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 20 of 130 Pg ID 5307
GEORGE TURe YNOWSKI 

1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

6, 01 

or tentat ly re to, p relati to 

o e fi matters. 

Q If 10 e fit matters were 

ne tiat in Muncie by officials 

that were s in Muncie, would y sent to 

Bo rner rters r 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm and tion. 

A I could only state what I said ea ier, and 

t is t re was a collaborative ef rt, I'm 

sure, wi rega to local management, t subsidiary 

11 management, and presumably at some point corporate 

12 management with regard to the programs that were 

13 tentatively agreed to. 

14 BY MR. 

15 Q Did BorgWarner Automotive have a role in 

16 deciding who bargained on behalf of BorgWarner DTP in 

17 their negoti ions with the UAW? 

18 A Not to my knowledge. 

19 Q Other than yourself as an employee of 

20 BorgWarner Automotive, were there any other employees 

21 of BorgWarner Automotive that were participants in 

22 the negotiations with the UAW over the Muncie plant? 

23 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

24 A Clarify for me, please, the time period that 

25 you're talking about. 

20 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 21 of 130 Pg ID 5308
1 

2 

3 

4 

TURC YNOWSKI 

r 16, 0 

BY MR. RADTKE: 

Q Let's 

A Not to 

s 

Q What about 

rom 1992 h 2000. 

knowl 

ior to 1992? 

5 

6 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to foundation. 

A In, not to my knowle 

7 BY MR. RADTKE: 

Page 21 

8 Q Did your responsibilities change in 1998 when 

9 you became the director of group benefits and 

10 ions as it relates to t BorgWarner lity in 

11 Muncie, Indiana? 

12 A duties remained essentially the same. 

13 were somewhat broadened to include other 

14 elements of the employee benefit programs. 

15 Q What other elements were added? 

16 A Such as a retirement savings plan, a/k/a 

17 401(k) plan. 

18 Q Did your duties change in 1998 when you 

19 became the director of group benefits and pensions at 

20 BorgWarner overall? 

21 A No. 

22 Q What about in 2000 when you became the 

23 director of employee benefits, did your role or 

24 responsibilities change during that period of time? 

25 A Yes, to include the broader benefit that I 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 22 of 130 Pg ID 5309
TURCZYNOWS 

16, 011 

menti 40 (k) 

Q Between 1993 did rt to? 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

A 

ral 

Q 

A 

Q 

rt 

A 

Q 

you 

A 

until 

Q 

A 

ce resi of human resources, 

ne nsella. 

d Ms. nsella work r? 

rgWarner omotive. 

Between 1998 2000, d continue to 

to Ms. nsella? 

s . 

what tween 2000 and 2005, who 

rt to? 

I continued to rt to Ms. Kinsella up 

about 2002 when s retired. 

who d you report to? 

A new vice resident of human resources, 

16 Ms. Kimberly Dickens, through about late 2004. 

17 Q who did you report to? 

d 

18 A To the new ce-president of human resources, 

19 Ms. Angela Daversa, until my retirement July 

20 of 2005. 

21 Q With respect to Ms. Kinsella and Ms. Daversa, 

22 they also worked for BorgWarner Automotive, is that 

23 accurate? 

24 A Yes. 

25 Q Did you ever work -- or I'm sorry -- report 

22 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 23 of 130 Pg ID 5310
TURe YNOWS 

r 16, 01 

1 to t Bo rner ve i Transmission 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

s? 

rt? 

Yes. 

No. 

Between 987 and 1993, who did you rt to? 

1987 

8 Q 1993. I lieve you testi ed at was the 

9 t you were employed by BorgWarner Protective 

10 Se ces. 

11 A Mr. Andrew Ruff, the director of risk 

12 management and employee bene ts. 

13 Q And who did he work for, Mr. Ruff? 

14 A He report to the vice-president of human 

15 resources, Mr. John O'Brien. 

16 Q What was the name of employer that 

17 Mr. Ruff worked for? 

18 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to foundation. 

19 A I believe it was Protective Services. 

20 BY MR. RADTKE: 

21 Q What about Mr. O'Brien, who was he employed 

22 by? 

23 A I can't say with certainty. 

24 Q Would it have been either BorgWarner 

25 Protective Services or BorgWarner Automotive? 

23 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 24 of 130 Pg ID 5311
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

16, 011 

24 

1 A 

2 Q wer emplo by Bo rner 

3 Automot what was role wi res ct to 

4 thi rty strators health care ts 

5 were p to Muncie emplo es? 

6 A We re s i y to secure those 

7 admi strators in st f ctive way 

8 poss Ie to p se se ces to the cie 

9 unit. 

10 Q So Bo rner Automot would cide whi 

11 thi rty admi strator would administer the alth 

12 care fits? 

13 A Generally speaking, was the case where 

14 practicable. 

15 Q Were there times when it wasn't practicable? 

16 A That's correct. 

17 Q In what instances was it not practicable? 

18 A Where there were no particular programs in 

19 place or administrators that lent themselves to the 

20 overall umbrella programs that we had or 

21 administrators that we had, so then we would on rare 

22 occasions do something on an as-needed basis or 

23 interim basis locally. 

24 Q So on those rare occasions that you just 

25 referenced the BorgWarner local management would 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 25 of 130 Pg ID 5312
TURCZYNOWS 

November 16, 201 

1 a thi rty 

2 A In Muncie? 

3 Q Yes. 

4 A No. 

5 Q t would 

6 A Not in Muncie. 

7 Q would 

8 more oball 

9 A More obally. 

nistrator? 

in t se rare instances? 

? So were re rri to 

10 Q In Muncie, BorgWarner Automotive was always 

11 e to secure a rd-party administrator for 

12 fits that were negotiated? 

13 A BorgWarner Muncie with assistance from my 

14 area. 

15 Q I'll give you an example. CIGNA at some 

16 point in time was a third-party administrator for the 

17 health care bene ts provided to the hourly 

18 employees? 

19 A Yes. 

20 Q Who decided to use CIGNA as the third-party 

21 administrator? 

22 A That became an issue under my venue, my 

23 purview. 

24 Q You decided? 

25 A Yes, yes. I mean, based on analysis and 

25 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 26 of 130 Pg ID 5313
TURCZYNOWS 

Novembe 16, 01 

1 not, 

2 Q at some int in t CIGNA was not us 

3 as health care thi rty administrator r the 

4 Muncie o es, is accurate? 

5 A I t to case. 

6 Q If re was a change in administrators wi 

7 re ct to alth care benefits for Muncie 

8 loyees, would t have also been your 

9 responsibility? 

10 A Yes. 

11 Q One of your responsibilities was related to 

12 t pension that was negotiated for the hourly 

13 employees at the Muncie plant, correct? 

14 A For the administration of the programs, yes. 

15 Q What did you do with - what was your job 

16 th respect to admi strating that program? 

17 A Primarily to make sure that that information 

18 was disseminated to the actuaries who would then 

19 perform the necessary evaluations of the programs and 

20 to identify the implications of those programs and 

21 then ultimately to the trustee to make sure that the 

22 benefit levels were going to be consistently paid out 

23 to prospective retirees when they made application 

24 for retirement through the local people in Muncie. 

25 Q Who were the trustees of the pension plan? 

26 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 27 of 130 Pg ID 5314
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 1, 011 

1 A Duri t rame f -

2 Q Between 1993 2005. 

3 A No rn Trust. 

4 Q d y were y trustees for 

5 more just pension plan t was negotiat 

6 at Bo rner facility r ly 0 es? 

7 A Yes. 

8 Q Who else were y the trustees for? 

9 MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection. Foundation and form. 

10 A Ot r hourly ion plans that were in 

11 existence in BorgWarner at that time. 

12 BY MR. 

13 Q Was there a single hourly pension plan? 

14 A No. 

15 Q What other -- explain to me the makeup of the 

16 pension plan during the time period. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

Which makeup? 

Well, was there a single plan? 

No. 

Was there a separate plan for each cility? 

Yes. 

And Northern Trust was the trustee for all of 

23 these separate hourly pension plans at the different 

24 facilities of BorgWarner Automotive? 

25 A Yes, the investment trustee. That's what I 

27 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 28 of 130 Pg ID 5315
(d<UI« ;1< 'l'UI;ZCi, NOW;;I< 1 

Nov\'rnLh:f l(), ()l] 

Paqe 2 

rnCcHl by Lru t. 

(2 lJo you knuw d Feqi::; Tr(~ncJd'? 

A T do. 

o Diel you ever work with Mr. Trenda? 

r did. 

Whc:;re did you work with Mr. Tr nda'? 

1\ lie was hc:;adquartered In the same of ices that 

8 was in Chicago. 

9 Q What was his job? 

lCl A He was a compliance of leer with res ct to 

11 legislative matters elating to employee benefit 

12 plans. 

13 Was he a lawyer? 

14 A He was an attorney. 

15 Did he work in the BorgWarner Automotive 

16 Legal Department? 

17 A Yes, he did. 

18 Do you know how long Mr. Trenda worked for 

19 BorgWarner Automotive? 

20 A Beginning in 19 -- I'm going to say around 

21 1989 or 1990, somewhat earlier than my transfer to 

22 BorgWarner Automotive in 1993. 

23 And how long did he continue to work for 

24 BorgWarner Automotive? 

25 A It was at least through 2005. I can't ak 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 29 of 130 Pg ID 5316
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

TURe YNOWS 

1, 0 1 

to ly r I re i in 2005 

1 re. 

Q Do r Mr. T was ever 

sent ring contract ne iations r Muncie 

o es? 

A At negotiating tIe? 

Q Yes. 

A Not to knowl 

Q d have any responsibility with respect 

to se contract ne iations away from the table? 

A He rformed a review function to make sure 

various sundry documents and programs 

13 were in compliance with ERISA and various other 

14 legislative issues such as HIPAA, the other 

15 legislation that was passed, and again, I do not 

16 recall t all off the top of my head but, again, to 

17 make sure t we were in compliance. 

18 Q When a collective bargaining agreement was 

19 reached between the UAW and BorgWarner at the Muncie 

20 facility, who was responsible for drafting 

21 contract? 

22 A It was a joint responsibility. It was -- the 

23 input was provided locally into either an existing 

24 document or, if necessary, a new document, which then 

25 was reviewed by the appropriate officials within the 

29 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 30 of 130 Pg ID 5317
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

ZYNOWS 

, 2011 

UAW 0 ion well a 

Q So once a tentat 

Page 30 

in Chica 

a ement was rea d in 

Muncie, officia s that were involved In 

ne iations an a ement that reflected the 

ements rea at ba ining table, is that 

6 correct? 

7 MR. BURCHFIELD: ect to rm. 

8 A local would start that 

9 process, s . 

10 BY MR. RADTKE: 

11 Q And then their work would be reviewed by 

12 BorgWarner corporate headquarters? 

13 A It would be reviewed by the appropriate 

14 people that had some level of expertise or 

15 responsibility with regard to the contents of that 

16 document. 

17 Q I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. 

18 One of those was Mr. Trenda. You mentioned 

19 that, right? 

20 

21 

22 

23 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

Yes. 

And one of them was you, lS that correct? 

Yes. 

And then at some point that document would be 

24 provided to the UAW, correct? 

25 A It could have been a simultaneous matter that 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 31 of 130 Pg ID 5318
GEORGE TURe YNOWS 

r 16, 011 

Page 31 

1 it was sent to us r ew as well as to t UAW 

2 1 in to ew or tever loca process 

3 y n o ization to ta care of 

4 se matters. 

5 Q Okay. I'm ing to talk a little bit about 

6 was actually ne tiated in e, okay? 

7 A Uh-huh. 

8 Q Is it recollection re was a alth 

9 insurance agreement was negotiated as a document 

10 in e? 

11 A Yes. 

12 Q And there was a retirement income program 

13 that was negotiat r the employees of Muncie? 

14 A Yes. 

15 Q And then re was a collective bargaining 

16 agreement that related to working conditions and 

17 wages r the employees at Muncie, correct? 

18 A Yes. Now, please, again, before we go any 

19 further, what time period are we talking about? 

20 Q During your time that 

21 A At any time between '93 and '98? 

22 Q Right. 

23 A Yes. 

24 Q And 2000, correct? 

25 A Yes. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 32 of 130 Pg ID 5319
GEORGE TORCZYNOWS 

r 16, 011 

Page 32 

1 Q Not 11 of may been negotiated at 

same t 

3 A Correct. 

4 Q I'm talking more globally. re were 

5 s rate documents that were rated as a result of 

6 contract ne iations? 

7 A Not alwa 

8 Q We'll talk about that. there were -- at 

9 some period of time re was a retirement income 

10 document, correct? 

11 A Yes. 

12 Q re was a separate collective bargaining 

13 agreement? 

14 A Yes. 

15 Q re was a s rate health insurance 

16 agreement? 

17 A Yes. 

18 Q I believe there was also a separate sub-plan 

19 agreement? 

20 A Yes. 

21 Q Before we mark this, I want to see if you can 

22 identify it. If you can, then I'll I'll read the 

23 document number into the record, and I apologize for 

24 the poor quality of it. It's LOC 000448. 

25 Mr. Turczynowsky, could you review this 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 33 of 130 Pg ID 5320
GEORGE TURe YNOWS 

16, 01 

1 cument? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

A P ase t 11 me te on s document 

is. 

Q lieve it is Ma 14, 1980. 

A I never seen this document to he best 

0 my 

Q I'm ing to ta it back. 

In 1980 you were manager of group 

insurance and employee benefits r BorgWarner 

Co ration, correct? 

A No. 

Q What was your title? 

A In 1980? 

Q Yes. 

A Manager of group insurance. 

Q Did you have any role in collective 

17 bargaining as it related to the Muncie facility at 

18 that time? 

19 A No. 

20 Q When was the first time you had any role with 

21 respect to collective bargaining at the Muncie 

22 facility? 

23 A Direct contact at the table? 

24 Q You mentioned -- you stated there was a lot 

25 of contact at the table time periods. I'm asking you 

33 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 34 of 130 Pg ID 5321
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

r 16, 011 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

outs 

'86? 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

Page 34 

o di ect cont ct. 

t 1985. 

re were contract ne tiations in 1985 and 

I lieve in 1986. 

re ct to 1986, what was your role 

7 in 1986 gotiations? 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

A 

local 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

To de some assistance and gui to 

with respect to the benefit issues 

Including al care benefits? 

Including heal care fits. 

d you playa similar role in 1989? 

Similar, but limited. 

What was your role in 1989? 

To provi some general information to local 

17 management with respect to health care and employee 

18 benefit matters. 

19 Q The first time you ever were at the 

20 bargaining table was 1992 with respect to the Muncie 

21 group? 

22 

23 

A 

Q 

Yes. 

Had you ever been involved in collective 

24 bargaining negotiations prior to 1992 in any other 

25 setting? 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 35 of 130 Pg ID 5322
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

TORCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 011 

A Yes. 

Q re? 

A Michi 

Q At what 

ne tiations? 

A Sterling 

Page 35 

ility were invol in 

i s cili y. 

Q What ne iations were you involved in with 

re ct to Sterling Hei s cility, what years? 

A I can't say with certainty. 

Q In 1980s? 

A 1980s, d to late 1980s. 

Q Was that your only other ior rience in 

13 contract negotiations with the union? 

14 A No. 

15 Q What other negotiations were you involved in? 

16 A Rockford, Illinois. 

17 Q What entity was located in Rockford, 

18 Illinois, that you were involved in contract 

19 negotiations? 

20 

21 

A 

Q 

At that time it was known as Rockford Clutch. 

It was a subsidiary of BorgWarner Automotive 

22 or BorgWarner, Inc.? 

23 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form, foundation. 

24 A I can't speak to the exact legal entity of 

25 that particular group. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 36 of 130 Pg ID 5323
GEORGE TURC YNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

r 16, 01 

MR. RADTKE: 

Q It was re at in some way to Bo rner? 

A In some 

Q What ars were invo d in contract 

ne tiations in Rock , Illinois? 

A d to lat 1980s. 

Q Any 0 r contract negotiations ior to 1992 

were invol in? 

A Chicago, Illinois. 

Q What facility were you invol in contract 

ne iations in Chicago, Illinois? 

A Borg & Beck clutch cility. 

Q Do you recall when you were involved in 

14 contract negotiations there? 

15 A Again, mid to late '80s. I don't have 

16 cific dates that I can recall. 

17 Q Any other contract negotiations? 

18 A There may be others, but I just don't recall 

19 them off the top of my head. 

20 (Exhibit 49 marked as requested.) 

21 BY MR. RADTKE: 

22 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

23 document that's been marked as Exhibit 49. 

24 Have you ever seen this document be re? 

25 A What is the date of this document? 

36 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 37 of 130 Pg ID 5324
ZYNOWS 

November 16, 2011 

1 Q re a r of es in s cument. 

2 Pa of it are from 1980. Pa s of it are from 

3 pr or to t 

4 A I cannot s r certa y t t I've ever 

5 seen is cument one way or another. 

6 Q Have you ever seen what was Warner Gear? 

7 Was it relat in way to BorgWarner Corporation? 

8 A To st of recollection, Warner Gear 

9 was the prior entity for DTP Muncie. 

10 Q Do you recall Warner Gear came DTP 

11 Muncie? 

12 A No. 

13 (Exhibit 50 marked as requested.) 

14 BY MR. RADTKE: 

15 Q You've been handed a document that's been 

16 marked as Exhibit 50. It's an April 1, 1983, Hou y 

17 Group Insurance Program covering employees in the 

18 bargaining unit represented by the UAW and its 

19 Local 287. 

20 Have you ever seen this document? 

21 A I may have. 

22 Q Where would you have seen this document? 

23 A In the files that may have been maintained or 

24 were maintained either at the plant or in Chicago in 

25 the administrative files. 

37 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 38 of 130 Pg ID 5325
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 fOIl 

Page 38 

1 Q d ever role wi re ct to 

2 fits are scr in is cument? 

3 MR. BURCHFIELD: ect to rm. 

4 A To st of knowl , no. 

5 (Exhibit 51 marked as requested.) 

6 BY MR. RADTKE: 

7 Q Mr. Turc ynows 've been what's 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

en mar as 

ef ctive January 

Insurance Program. 

Have you 

A It's poss 

13 certainty. 

it 51. It's a document that says 

1, 1985. It says Retired Group 

ever seen s document re? 

e, but I can't say with 

14 Q Do you know who s Retired Group Insurance 

15 Program was applicable to? 

16 A No. 

17 Q You testified that BorgWarner Automotive came 

18 into existence in about 1987, is that correct? 

19 A Approximately. 

20 Q You'll notice that the title of this document 

21 is BorgWarner Automotive. 

22 A Okay. 

23 Q So is it your recollection that on January 1, 

24 1985, BorgWarner Automotive was not in existence? 

25 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 39 of 130 Pg ID 5326
GEORGE TURC YNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 2011 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

A I can't s ak to s wa not my area 

0 rtis , so re re I can't rna an 

ntelli re se to t stion. Sorry. 

BY MR. RADTKE: 

Q 's okay. 

'm go to ask you to turn to 26 of 

is cument. If look at the bottom, it says 

plan i ification number. 

A Yes. 

Q I says Plan Number 581. 

Do you any familiarity with that plan 

12 number? 

13 A Not off the top of my head. 

14 Q Were there different plan numbers r 

15 insurance programs that were provided to employees 

16 and retirees at Muncie plant? 

17 A I ink there were dif rent plan numbers. 

18 Q And were there some plan numbers that covered 

19 sala ed emplo es and retirees and some plan numbers 

20 that covered hourly plan members and retirees? 

21 A I think that's an accurate statement. 

22 Q So at this point you don't know whether Plan 

23 Number 581 was an hourly plan or a salary plan? 

24 A I do not. 

25 Q On the last page -- I think it's the very 

39 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 40 of 130 Pg ID 5327
GEORGE ZYNOWS 

r 16, 011 

1 next s ri re, sir. One more. 

2 MR. FIELD: one Acci and 

3 Health Insurance? 

4 MR. RADTKE: Yes. 

5 BY MR. RADTKE: 

6 Q On ttom it sa PF 26003 and t in 

7 sis 3.1. 

8 

9 

10 

Do you recognize t as - that numbering? 

A No. 

MR. RADTKE: k you. 

11 t 52 marked as requested.) 

12 BY MR. RADTKE: 

13 Q Was there something you wanted to point out 

14 there, Mr. Turczynowsky? 

15 A In the interest of accuracy, I said I had no 

16 i a what a Plan 581 was. 

17 Q Yes. 

18 A However, on Page 29 at the top of the page, 

19 Certi cate of Insurance, that particular policy 

20 number, if memory serves me, suggests this is a 

21 salary plan. 

22 Q Thank you. 

23 I think you've been handed a document that's 

24 been marked as Exhibit 52. 

25 A Yes, I have. 

40 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 41 of 130 Pg ID 5328
TIJRCZYNOWS 

r 16, 011 

Page 41 

1 Q It's si ion statement. There is some 

2 iti s sts it's from 1986, if you 

3 look at first page, and t re is 

4 re rences to 1986 1987. 

5 Have you ever seen s document be re? 

6 A I cannot s Wl certainty one way or 

7 r. 

8 Q Do you know -- have you ever seen a similar 

9 document t was entitled Position Statement? 

10 A I can't say r certain. 

11 Q Were you ever invo d in dra ing position 

12 statements for BorgWarner? 

13 A Similar to this? 

14 Q Similar to this. 

15 A No. 

16 Q Do you know anyone who was involved in 

17 dra ing position statements that were similar to 

18 this? 

19 A No. 

20 MR. RADTKE: Thank you. 

21 (Exhibit 53 marked as requested.) 

22 BY MR. RADTKE: 

23 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

24 document that's been marked as Exhibit 53. It's an 

25 August 7, 1986, letter from Dean Boyle to Charles 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 42 of 130 Pg ID 5329
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 0 1 

2 Have ever seen th s cument re? 

3 A I'm not sure. 

4 Q estified earlier that were nvolved 

5 in 1986 ne tiations from tIe, 

6 correct? 

7 A t is correct. 

8 

9 

Q in 1986 re were contract ne tiations 

between the UAW and BorgWarner at 

10 cility, correct? 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

if 

A 

Q 

you 

A 

Q 

A 

I think 

And was 

remember? 

I do not 

Who was 

He was 

so. 

re a threat of 

recall. 

an Boyle? 

human resources 

Muncie 

a strike in 1986, 

senior human 

17 resources mana r at Muncie facility at that 

18 time. 

19 Q He was a participant in bargaining th the 

20 UAW in 1986? 

21 A Yes, I believe that's correct. 

22 Q Were you con ted in 1986 about whether 

23 retiree health care coverage would be provided if 

24 there was a strike? 

25 A No. 

42 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 43 of 130 Pg ID 5330
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

r 16, 011 

Q 'm to hand what's en mar d 

pr ously as it 5, which is an Oct r 27, 

1989, Bo rner Automot and UAW Local 287 

Tentat ement. 

Have you ever seen s document be re, 

6 Mr. Turczynowsky? 

7 A I lieve I is looks familiar. May 

8 I ask you what's date of s, asi from 

9 10/26/89, when this was published, do you know? 

10 Q I 't know. I can only tell you that 

11 that's the date on the top of it. 

12 A Okay. Fair enough. 

13 Q Do you recall whether you would have seen 

14 this document around the time of October 1989? 

15 

16 

17 

A 

Q 

A 

I can't say for certain. 

How would you have seen this document? 

It would have been distributed to us for 

18 administrative purposes to make sure that all the 

19 various and sundry changes were prope y incorporated 

20 into documents, to advise the administrators of the 

21 programs, you know, what the levels were going to be 

22 and so on and so forth. It was an informational 

23 document. 

24 Q So this would be the sort of document that 

25 you would receive so that you could inform the 

43 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 44 of 130 Pg ID 5331
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

r 16, 011 

thi rty strator 

Ie went to seven 

A Yes. 

Q I'm looki at 

Number 10. And , for 

pre-stri covera conti 

$400,000 major cal Ii t 

year e, correct? 

A Yes. 

Q So you would have 

t b name drugs 

lIars, correct? 

second , Item 

e, Number 11, that 

ct plus a 

maximum and calendar 

cated to 

11 whoever the third-party administrator was that 

12 according to what was reached -- the contract reached 

13 at the table that major medical maximum increased 

14 as a result of negotiations? 

15 A Yes. 

16 Q On Item Number 20 there is a reference to 

17 managed care. 

18 Do you recall that the parties negotiated a 

19 managed care program for active employees and 

20 pre-Medicare retirees in 1989? 

21 MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection to form, foundation. 

22 A I believe that's correct. 

23 BY MR. RADTKE: 

24 Q And could you describe what a managed care 

25 program was as it relates to this group of employees? 

44 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 45 of 130 Pg ID 5332
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 011 

45 

1 A nerally saki ,it d require 

2 es and pre care re irees to seek 

3 authorization or concurrence r cal 

4 necessity relat to a pI noneme inpatient 

5 con nement, a cal pro , the length of stay 

6 authorization s on ssion protocols, 

7 nerally a gram would provi for some 

8 intervention by a ird party to review what is 

9 anned by the attending physicians with respect to 

10 an i vidual's care. 

11 Q Was a dif rent program that was in 

12 ace for the Muncie facility than what was in place 

13 prior to 1989? 

14 A I believe this was a new procedure. 

15 Q And do you know what the procedure was prior 

16 to 1989? 

17 A I believe it contained none of these 

18 provisions, that it was based on the employee and the 

19 attending physicians that would work directly without 

20 any kind of intervention and no ability on anyone's 

21 part or requirement on anyone's part, I should 

22 say, to review what those procedures might be. 

23 Q Okay. If you go back to Number 11 where it 

24 says health care, hospital, medical, surgical, major 

25 medical, current retirees, and then it says 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 46 of 130 Pg ID 5333
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 16, 0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

pre-stri covera r current 

retirees as 0 r 27, 1989, were into the 

mana care or not? 

. BURCHFIELD: Could you read that stion 

back, ease? 

(From reco , the rter read 

11 ng: 

"Q Okay. If you go back to Number 

11 where it says alth care, hospital, 

cal, su cal, major medical, current 

retirees, and then it says pre-strike 

coverage, do you know whether current 

retirees as of October 27, 1989, were put 

into the managed care program or not?") 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and foundation. 

A I don't think so. 

17 BY MR. RADTKE: 

18 Q Do you recall in 1989 that there was a strike 

19 at the Muncie facility? 

20 A I do. 

21 Q And then that strike concluded with this 

22 tentative agreement that I showed you and has been 

23 marked previously as Exhibit 5? 

24 A I believe that to be correct. 

25 Q Is it your understanding that the retiree 

46 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 47 of 130 Pg ID 5334
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 011 

al care its provi to retire s as of 

Oct r 27, 1989, stayed same e r 

rease of major medical Ii t max and 

t t ible now went on a calendar ar? 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm and foundation. 

A I It recall that level of detail, but I 

to assume t is document is correct. 

8 BY MR. 

9 Q In Item Number 13 it talks about health care 

10 benefits r re retirees. 

11 Do you see that? 

12 A I 

13 Q And then it refers to Attachment Number 3, 

14 which is attached actually to this document. 

15 A I see it. 

16 Q Is it your recollection that hourly employees 

17 who retired effective December 1, 1989, through March 

18 of -- I'm sor -- March of 1995 continued to have 

19 the health care bene ts that are set forth in 

20 Attachment Number 3 up until the time of your 

21 retirement in 2005? 

22 A I can't say that. 

23 Q You don't recall? 

24 A No. 

25 Q In looking at this tentative settlement that 

47 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 48 of 130 Pg ID 5335
GEORGE TORCZYNOWS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

r 16, 0 1 

is it , are aware 0 any 

ne rties as i relates 

eli ility or tion of retiree al 

benefits? 

A In is 1989 agreement? 

Q Yes. 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm and 

A My only recollection related to 

s t 

to 

h care 

retiree 

ts was a sion in eements that 

were 

ion. 

8 

9 

10 stated t t company reserved the right to change, 

11 amend, suspend, te nate programs at any time 

12 subject to whatever collect bargaining sions 

13 there were in place. 

14 BY MR. RADTKE: 

15 Q And what agreement was that statement that 

16 you just re renced? 

17 A There, I believe, were health insurance 

18 agreements that dated back to 1989, 1992 where that 

19 particular language -- again, if my memory is 

20 correct was included in those documents. 

21 Q Do you know whether that type of language is 

22 included agreements prior to 1989? 

23 A I do not. 

24 Q You do not know? 

25 A I do not know. I do not recall. 

48 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 49 of 130 Pg ID 5336
Q Do 

2 re renci was ne 

r 

iat at 

I that you're 

e with the 

3 union? 

4 

5 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm and foundation. 

A I have to assume it was, but I cannot be 

6 certain. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

BY MR. RADTKE: 

Q You weren't re in the 1989 negotiations? 

A 

Q If 

is correct. 

rties negotiat an item at the 

11 table, would you agree that BorgWarner's --

12 BorgWarner Automotive, meaning its corporate office, 

13 did not have right or authority to change the 

14 tentative agreements that were reached by the parties 

15 at the table? 

16 MR. BURCHFIELD: I'm sorry. Could you read that 

17 back? 

18 (From the record above, the reporter read 

19 the following: 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

"Q If the parties negotiated an 

item at the table, would you agree that 

BorgWarner's -- BorgWarner Automotive, 

meaning its corporate office, did not have 

the right or authority to change the 

tentative agreements that were reached by 

49 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 50 of 130 Pg ID 5337
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, all 

rti s a t ?") 

MR. FI D: ion. I nk 

3 calls r a Ie I usion. 

4 A I can't say one way or r. 

5 BY MR. RADTKE: 

6 Q Well, if t rties rea an ement, 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

r Ie, t t ion deduct es will 

seven lars at table in Bo rner in 

Muncie, if t item came to you in Chicago, could 

s , no, we're ing to ma it ten dollars? 

A I couldn't do that. I didn't have the 

authority to do anything Ii that. 

Q d anyone at BorgWarner corporate have the 

14 authority to override what tentative agreements were 

15 reached at the bargaining table? 

16 A I don't know. 

17 (Exh t 54 marked as requested.) 

18 BY MR. RADTKE: 

19 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, have you ever seen the 

20 document that's been marked as Exhibit 54, which is a 

21 document dated December 8, 1989? 

22 A I believe so. 

23 Q Your name is there. 

24 A Yes. 

25 Q Do you know who Mr. Burghgraef was? 

50 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 51 of 130 Pg ID 5338
TURC YNOWS 

November 16, 0 1 

A Ye . He was 

2 rt to me. 

3 Q He wor in 

4 A He d. 

o collea s . 

rters? 

5 Q What was is document? 

6 A s s, in ct, t document 

7 re r to ear ier, whi rect and 

He 

t I 

icit 

8 instructions to our l rty admi strators as to 

9 e exact nature of programs that they, the 

10 nistrators, to l in ir systems for 

11 proper administration and adj cation of prospective 

12 claims. 

13 MR. RADTKE: Do you mind if we ta a few minutes 

14 here? 

15 MR. BURCHFIELD: Absolutely_ Let's take a break. 

16 (Recess was taken.) 

17 BY MR. RADTKE: 

18 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, what's a summary plan 

19 description? 

20 A Typically it was a booklet or a pamphlet that 

21 was produced to summarize the level of benefits for 

22 employees, retirees. 

23 Q In your experience was that a document that 

24 was bargained with the union? 

25 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and foundation. 

51 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 52 of 130 Pg ID 5339
GEORGE TORe YNOWSKI 

r 1 1 011 

1 

2 

A It t cally refl ct d 

a to in colI ct ini 

3 BY MR. RADTKE: 

4 Q But it was f rent 

ini ement? 

t on 

a collective 

5 

6 A A summary plan scr ion was not a legal 

7 cument r se. It was a summary only and ssed 

8 

9 

usually in la 's terms t Y could understand 

all of Ie lese that was typically in a 

10 ba ini or a alth insurance agreement. 

11 Q In your rience could a summary plan 

12 scr ion take away something that was ba ined 

13 a collect ba ini agre ? 

14 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object. Foundation. It calls 

15 r a legal conclusion. 

16 A To the st of my knowl 1 no. 

17 BY MR. RADTKE: 

18 Q I'm going to hand you a document that's 

19 previously been marked as Exhibit 7. It's the 

20 October 27, 1989, health insurance booklet. 

21 Have you ever seen this document before? 

22 A Yes. 

23 Q What is this document? 

24 A It is the comprehensive document that 

25 reflects all of the provisions of the bene t 

52 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 53 of 130 Pg ID 5340
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, all 

rams as 

ne tiat 

rties 

It incl 

rties a was 

s ration of plan, 

terms and sions, as well as the level of 

fits. 

Q I'm sor Go ahead. 

A Just one ot r po ich is important. I 

7 noti in ck summary description. 

8 

9 

10 

It p s r the Ie 1 requirement 

information relat to the operation of the plant. 

MR. BURCHFIELD: He's on page with the last 

11 three Bates numbers 251. 

12 MR. RADTKE: Okay. 

13 THE WITNESS: And these are legally required 

14 provisions that have to be included r the benefit 

15 of the employees so that they will understand what 

16 their rights and entitlements are across the whole 

17 spectrum of not only plant operation but also the 

18 process by which they can appeal claims and what 

19 their entitlements are under ERISA. 

20 BY MR. RADTKE: 

21 Q This document is produced -- I'm sorry. Let 

22 me re-ask that question. 

23 You've been refe ng to the portion of 

24 Exhibit 7 that begins on Page 120 where it says 

25 summary description information, plan administration, 

53 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 54 of 130 Pg ID 5341
GEORGE TORe YNOWSKI 

r 16, 20 

54 

1 correct? 

2 A Pa 120, t t is corre t. 

3 Q s is a cument Pa 120, 121, 

4 et cetera, through of t summary description 

5 rmation, this was a document was produced 

6 written Bo rner, correct? 

7 A s was a cument t was produced by DTP 

8 Muncie and ewed by BorgWarner. 

9 Q Okay. And you do not I think you 

10 testifi you're not sure whe r s was negotiated 

11 with union at table? 

12 A I'm sor What was? 

13 Q Whether this portion, which is the summary 

14 description information, do you know whether it was 

15 negotiated with the union? 

16 A I'm not sure I understand your question. It 

17 has to reflect what all parties have agreed to, 

18 number one; and number two, it has to also reflect, 

19 this section beginning 120, what the legal 

20 requirements are relative to plan operation such as 

21 who the administrator of the plan is, who they can 

22 contact with respect to appealing a claim; if there 

23 is a dispute, how that dispute is to be resolved. 

24 These are legal portions that are required to be 

25 included in every document that is made available to 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 55 of 130 Pg ID 5342
GEORGE TURe YNOWSKI 

r 16, 011 

55 

1 I s . 

2 Q You re reservation of rights type 

3 I p ously re I s this 

4 document. 

5 Do recall t? 

6 A I 

7 Q Is t I in this al urance 

8 a ement t I've d that's en marked as 

9 t 7? 

10 A 121. 

11 Q What are you re rring to on Page 121? 

12 A Future of the plan. 

13 Q I believe you re rred to the first paragraph 

14 as to the reservation of right to modi ,amend, 

15 suspend, or terminate? 

16 A Yes. 

17 Q Then in the second paragraph it says that 

18 it re rences the collectively bargained health 

19 insurance agreement, correct, where it says, 

20 Additional information regarding termination of 

21 insurance policies and individual insurance coverage 

22 is provided in the health insurance agreement. 

23 A Are you talking about the second paragraph 

24 that begins with "An individu 's insurance coverage 

25 terminates" 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 56 of 130 Pg ID 5343
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

TURCZYNOWS 

r 16, 011 

Q Cor ct. 

A Yes. 

Q So it also sa t it s 

an is maintai pursuant to a collective 

ing ement, correct? 

A I see t. 

Q So acco to summary plan 

insurance cover additional insurance 

scr 

9 in rmation regarding termination of insurance 

ion, 

10 policies insurance cove is provided in the 

11 alth insurance agreement. So the individual who 

12 rece d this should look to alth insurance 

13 agreement to determine whether they were eligible for 

14 coverage and when that coverage would terminate, 

15 correct? 

16 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and foundation. 

17 A That's what the document says. 

18 BY MR. RADTKE: 

19 Q It looks like this document was -- the final 

20 draft was dated November 15, 1991, and then it was 

21 signed in 1992. Look at Page 16. 

22 

23 

24 

25 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

I see it. 

You did not sign this document, correct? 

I did not. 

Do you know who this document was prepared 

56 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 57 of 130 Pg ID 5344
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

16, 201 

by, Ith i surance et? 

A It d en by the DTP 

mana e t is a draft -- then 

distributed to the union r ir review, submitted 

to us r our ew, we would then make changes 

or inco rate 1 or stions and union 

d do same, and ult tely the result is this 

rticular cument. 

Q And then after all of that is worked out 

, at least 1992, t cument was signed by 

11 the rties as it related to what was agreed to in 

12 1989, correct? 

13 A Yes. That's the case here. 

14 Q What was your understanding of the duration 

15 of retiree health care benefits for hourly employees? 

16 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm. 

17 A Which hourly employees are we -- what time 

18 frame are we talking about? 

19 BY MR. RADTKE: 

20 Q The emplo es who retired, let's say, between 

21 1989 and 1992. 

22 A What was the duration, my understanding of 

23 it? That it is subject to change and modi cation 

24 and termination, et cetera, consistent with the 

25 language that we see in this document that was signed 

57 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 58 of 130 Pg ID 5345
1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 6, 011 

of 

Q 

avail Ie 

on. 

to 

se s t you believe were 

ne tiat th the union? 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm and foundation. 

A I ink tIs an open issue that I don't 

want to ss cause I'm not certain. 

7 BY MR. RADTKE: 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Q Was it your rst that retirees who 

retired re the 1989 contract also could have 

ir benefits changed? 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm and foundation. 

A That level of detail I do not recall. 

13 BY MR. RADTKE: 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Q I'm going to hand you what's been marked as 

t 8. That one is a pre ously marked exhibit. 

You don't have to give it to court reporter. 

Have you ever seen this document be re? 

A Yes. 

Q This document that I'm re rring to has been 

marked previously as Exhibit 8. It's dated 

21 October 27, 1989. 

22 It's a Retirement Income Program Guide 

23 Booklet, correct? 

24 A Yes. 

25 Q And when did you see this document, during 

58 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 59 of 130 Pg ID 5346
TURCZYNOWS 

Novembe 16, 2011 

1 o 

2 A Yes. 

t Bo 

3 Q At some point 

4 aut rity, correct? 

A Yes. 

rner? 

ions carne r your 

5 

6 Q And is et, this is a document 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

t 's ne iat tween t union 

A Yes. 

Q And Muncie, correct? 

A Yes. 

Q t's the purpose of guide booklet? 

A It reflects the level of benefits and the 

? 

13 provisions and the terms and the operation of various 

14 and sundry pension provisions r emplo es, 

15 including the level of bene ts. 

16 Q And it reflects the negotiated agreement that 

17 was bargained by the parties, is that accurate? 

18 A Yes. 

19 Q Because the parties bargained pension 

20 benefits and eligibility, correct? 

21 A Yes. 

22 Q Could you look at Page 17 of this document 

23 under ghlights? Do you see where it says Group 

24 Insurance at Retirement, that provision? 

25 A Yes. 

59 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 60 of 130 Pg ID 5347
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

TURCZYNOWSKI 

16, 011 

Q 

are 

A 

d 

t 0 t 8? 

cally it would 

to r l s 

en a of 

ei r an existi document or a new document done, 

in, locally by nt at DTP Muncie. 

Q Would Retirement Income P Guide 

Book et be p d to s retirees? 

A My understanding was t these documents 

9 were made available to employees and retirees. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Q Were you aware t group insurance 

re rence was In pension plan? 

A I see it. 

ibit 55 mar d as requested.) 

14 BY MR. RADTKE: 

15 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

16 document that's been marked as Exhibit 55. It's a 

17 fax and then an attachment to the fax. It looks like 

18 it was faxed in February of 1989 from Mr. Nuerge to 

19 yourself. 

20 Who is Mr. Nuerge? 

21 A He was the manager -- benefits manager at the 

22 Muncie plant. 

23 Q Have you ever seen this document before? 

24 A I'm sure I did. 

25 Q You don't remember what fax you received 21 

60 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 61 of 130 Pg ID 5348
GEORGE TORCZYNOWS 

r 16, 011 

61 

1 or 22 ars ? 

2 A Not at all. 

3 Q y. Have you ever seen booklets or 

4 cuments t are similar to what the attachment is 

5 to , I guess Pa s 2 3 of this exhibit? 

6 A y do look s liar. 

7 Q d you ew se summaries? 

8 A I may not rsonally reviewed se 

9 summaries, but certainly someone in our area would 

10 have revi se. 

11 Q And these summaries were given to employees 

12 and retirees to describe their benefits as of 

13 retirement? 

14 A That is my understanding, but I cannot be 

15 certain because I was not present when such an 

16 activity may have taken place. 

17 Q That took place at the Muncie plant? 

18 A Yes. 

19 Q If you look at the third page where it 

20 discusses health insurance with survivor option, it 

21 says, If a survivor option is elected and your spouse 

22 becomes eligible to receive a survivor benefit, 

23 health insurance is in effect for the rest of the 

24 spouse's lifetime as long as he or she does not 

25 marry. The company pays the premium. In the case of 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 62 of 130 Pg ID 5349
GEORGE TURe YNOWS 

November 16, 0 1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Page 62 

remarri al in urance is cancel 

Is t rstanding of ation 

of retiree al care nefits for a surviving 

se of retiree? 

MR. FIELD: Object rm foundation. 

A I 't 

I think is cument s en s rseded. 

8 ibit 56 marked as requested.) 

9 BY MR. RADTKE: 

10 

11 

Q 

t's 

I'm ing -- you've en handed a document 

en marked as ibit 56, and the cover page 

12 shows that it was an exhibit in a case invol ng 

13 BorgWarner Transmission Products and UAW. 

14 Underneath that is - the first page is a March 24, 

15 1987, letter from Bill Studlow to Dick Nuerge. 

16 Do you know who Mr. Studlow is? 

17 A He was another one of my colleagues in the 

18 department. 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

So he worked at BorgWarner headquarters? 

He did. 

Along th Marty Burghgraef? 

That's correct. 

He was copied on this letter, correct? 

Yes. 

And then attached to that letter is a dra 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 63 of 130 Pg ID 5350
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

r 6, 011 

o an insurance k e r 

r 1, 1986. 'm re 

t Mr. Studlow wrote Mr. r 

A y. I see it. 

Q you ever seen 

re? 

A I cannot say r certa 

Q '11 notice when you 

is t re was handwriting 

y retirees prior to 

off letter 

atta d document 

y. 

were paging through 

throughout is 

10 document. 

11 Do you recognize any of the handwriting 

12 that's contained in this document? 

13 A I believe it was Mr. Studlow's handwriting. 

14 Q k you. You've been handed 

15 A May I just 

16 Q Yes. 

17 A go back to an exhibit that you had 

18 previously provided, which was Number 55? 

19 

20 

Q 

A 

Okay. 

And I made the comment that I think this 

21 particular document was superseded. We noted that, 

22 correct? 

23 

24 

25 

Q 

A 

Q 

We did note that. 

Thank you. 

Here is a document that's been marked 

63 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 64 of 130 Pg ID 5351
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 0 1 

1 t 9 . 

2 Have 

A I 

r s en cument re? 

3 ' t ink so. 

4 

5 

6 

Q You don't r cument was 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

mar as t 9, Ire Iding in 

, is what s rse it 55? 

A No, I , t . 

Q If you look at last ve last 

page, it s -- you my copy, so it's 

i -- you will see it says 1-90. 

A I see it. 

Q Do you know whe r t would indicate that 

s document was produced in Janua of 1990? 

A I do not. 

Q I'll show you ano r one. This document has 

16 been marked as Exhibit 22. 

17 Have you ever seen this document? 

18 A I don't recall it. 

19 Q You will notice that this document again on 

20 last page has a 5-95 in the little tiny lettering 

21 on the bottom. 

22 A I see 

23 Q And that it also re rs to under scription 

24 drugs for persons -- and that's on the last page --

25 for persons retiring on or after June 1, 1995, the 

64 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 65 of 130 Pg ID 5352
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

i 

is 

1995, 

A 

Q 

011 

lIar 

Does 

1996? 

Yes. 

k 

You 

r 

you. 

sa 

1 lIars r b 

neric, et ce era. 

refre recollection t 

en a cument t was available 

8 t re ct to ibit 55 

9 re was a sion of t 55. 

10 A I 't s revision. I said rseded. 

11 Q I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to sspeak. 

in 

12 t 55 was at some point superseded by a 

13 dif rent document, is that accurate? 

14 A I believe so. I don't recall seeing these 

15 types of documents with any degree of certainty or 

16 detail. But I do know that certain provisions that 

17 appear this document were included the health 

18 insurance agreement that we had looked at earlier 

19 with respect to -- we have -- the company has the 

20 ght, subject to all the provisions of the 

21 bargaining agreement, et cetera, to modi ,change, 

22 and/or terminate the plans. 

23 Q Okay. Do you know when those documents were 

24 created? 

25 A Well, they were the ones that you had shown 

65 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 66 of 130 Pg ID 5353
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

TURCZYNOWS 

r 16, 011 

me. 

Q No. 

A se here? 

Q Yeah. 

A I no idea. 

to me to very 

date. language 

I have no idea. y appear 

But I can't ak to the 

re from what I can see 

suggests that it's too open- many areas and 

9 that we probably would not have retained that kind of 

10 an a I d be wrong. I d wrong. 

11 Q When you say too open-ended, what do you mean 

12 by ? 

13 A Open-ended in the sense that it doesn't 

14 provide for any disclaimers. I don't see anything 

15 re, although it does talk about refer to the 

16 boo et for details. I think there should have been 

17 more specificity as to what booklet we're talking 

18 about. And, in fact, the legal document would always 

19 govern as opposed to a summary written in layman's 

20 terms that may have been handed out. 

21 Q But certainly that document, if that document 

22 was distributed to employees or retirees, reflects 

23 the company's understanding of what the benefits were 

24 for the retirees, correct? 

25 A What I'm suggesting, there is language here 

66 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 67 of 130 Pg ID 5354
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 2011 

1 ly s ld en more st as r 

2 as what rns as s to a t may 

3 en to someone. 

4 Q I rstand, but i ck to my question, 

5 

6 

company woul 

knew was lse, ri 

't hand out something 

? 

7 MR. BURCHFIELD: ect to rm. 

8 A Or y dn't know any better. 

9 BY MR. RADTKE: 

y 

10 Q Well, was handed out by 

11 BorgWarner DTP's pension department, correct? 

12 A I assume so. 

13 Q So that was their job to know what the 

14 bene ts were that retirees were going to get, right? 

15 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm, argumentative. 

16 A There was a level of sophistication that 

17 probably, while well-intentioned, may not always have 

18 been the correct approach locally. In other words, 

19 they were well-intentioned, but they didn't have the 

20 legal expertise or other explicit details that should 

21 have been included in some of these documents. And, 

22 again, they appear to be somewhat dated to me. In 

23 other words, they were sent on such and such a date, 

24 but who knows how far back these things actually 

25 went. And the major provision should have been in 

67 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 68 of 130 Pg ID 5355
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

November 1, 011 

1 r t 

2 al situations 

3 di e arises. 

actual 

t 

plan cument 

re was a 

t langua 

1 rn in 

e or if a 

is not in reo 

4 I'm sorry. was my y point t I was trying 

5 to rna 

6 BY MR. RADTKE: 

7 Q 's fine. I'm ing to you a 

8 cument 's been marked p ously as it 11. 

9 It's an Agreement on Modification and Extension of 

10 r Contract, Existi Labor Contract. 

11 Have you ever seen that document before? 

12 A I 

13 Q Do you recollect that parties reached 

14 this agreement in 1990 to extend the labor contract, 

15 the heal insurance agreement, the retirement income 

16 program, et cetera, to 1995? 

17 A I see that. 

18 Q Do you remember that at all? 

19 A Not to that detail. 

20 Q Okay. Do you remember that the parties were 

21 going to attempt to discuss and reach agreement as it 

22 related to health care cost and post-retirement 

23 benefits, among other items, in 1990? 

24 A I do. 

25 Q And do you recall that there were various 

68 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 69 of 130 Pg ID 5356
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

r 16, 201 

ttees were d to scus s issues? 

A I 

Q Were on of se committees? 

A No. 

Q If look at bi 3, it's a joint letter 

of a ement on st-retirement fit liabilities. 

Do see ? 

A I see it. 

Q Now, have you ever seen ano r version of 

it 3, whi contai a f rent Paragraph 6? 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Paragraph 6 is the last 

ragraph on the ? 

MR. RADTKE: Ye 

A I don't recall. 

15 BY MR. RADTKE: 

16 Q Mr. Trenda testified in another lawsuit 

17 between BorgWarner -- in that case it was against the 

18 UAW -- and he recalled that ibit 3 -- there was a 

19 prior version of Exhibit 3 in which last 

20 paragraph said that the company acknowledges and 

21 agrees that post-retirement benefits are guaranteed 

22 for the lifetime of the retiree. 

23 Do you recall seeing a version of Exhibit 3 

24 with that language? 

25 MR. BURCHFIELD: Do you have his testimony there 

69 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 70 of 130 Pg ID 5357
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSK 

November 6, 20 1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

BY 

I could look t? 

MR. Ye 

MR. FI ks. Object to 

stion and foundation. 

A I not recall t. 

MR. RADTKE: Okay. 

MR. BURCHFI Thanks. 

RADTKE: 

Q Mr. T testi ed that Paragr 

form of 

6 was 

8 

9 

10 reject by BorgWarner co rate adquarters and 

11 that he drafted Paragraph 6 that appears at the 

12 bottom of t 3 of -- that is Exhibit 11. 

13 Does that refresh your recollection at all? 

14 A Mr. Trenda rewrote Paragraph 6? 

15 Q That's what he testified to. 

16 A I can't ak to his testimony, and I don't 

17 recall ever seeing something other than is 

18 particular language in any of the documents. 

19 Q Okay. You understood, though, as of 1990 

20 that the union's position was that current retirees 

21 have lifetime vested benefits, correct? 

22 A That was the union's contention. at was 

23 not my contention. 

24 

25 

Q Otherwise we wouldn't be here, I think. 

MR. BURCHFI Well, you never know. I'm sure 

70 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 71 of 130 Pg ID 5358
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 1 , 2011 

71 

we wou fi some i to a 

2 MR. RADTKE: You may not invol in t . 

3 BY MR. RADTKE: 

4 Q I'm to hand you what's been mar d as 

5 Exhibit 16. 

6 Have you ever seen that document re? 

7 mi have ten misst led. 

8 A s section? 

9 Q tIl, which is same as this. 

10 MR. BURCHFIELD: It's misstapled. 

11 MR. RADTKE: It's stapled incorrectly. 

12 MR. BURCHFIELD: You can take it off. 

13 MR. RADTKE: Ta it off. Thank you. 

14 BY MR. RADTKE: 

15 Q Have you ever seen that document before? 

16 A Not in its entirety. There are certain 

17 components here that I recognize with respect to the 

18 financials that we probably provided relating to the 

19 PRB calculations, the actual values of the 

20 accumulated post retirement bene t obligations, and 

21 the projected levels in accordance with the Financial 

22 Accounting Standards Board. 

23 Q What about the part that is UAW 735 where it 

24 talks about Health Improvement an? You'll see at 

25 the bottom. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 72 of 130 Pg ID 5359
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 011 

1 

2 

3 

4 

A 

referri 

Q 

A 

to? 

Health 

733? 

S cu ty Plan, is t 

rovement Plan. 

5 

6 

Q We can start reo You're right. 

start with Health Securi Plan. 

one Ire 

tIs 

7 Do you any recollection of seeing this 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

re? 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

No, no, no. 

You'll notice 

Hell no. 

Why are you upset about s? 

No particular reason. 

You will notice that the characteristics of 

15 the Health Security Plan would be that the current 

16 retirees would be grandfathered under benefits they 

17 retired with? 

18 

19 

A 

Q 

I see that. 

And that current employees who retire before 

20 2003 are grandfathered under the benefits that they 

21 retired with? 

22 

23 

24 

A 

Q 

A 

I see that. 

What is a Health Security Plan? 

It was something that I th k was probably 

25 concocted locally as a reference to what they were 

72 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 73 of 130 Pg ID 5360
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

r 16, 201 

to a 

Q 

735, 

4 Plan. 

li h. 

y. You 11 Doti r - f to 

s - t s is ti 1 Heal rovement 

5 Were nvol in way respect to 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

is document, s page? 

A No. 

Q And again 

A No, no. 

Q Okay. You'll notice that this also 

11 references employees and current retirees as being 

12 grandfathered? 

13 A I do. I should point out that these look 

14 like and they are titled proposals. 

15 Q I understand that. There is all kinds of 

16 words in there that we don't need to discuss. 

17 A Okay. 

18 MR. BURCHFIELD: How are you doing? 

19 THE WITNESS: Great. 

20 MR. BURCHFIELD: Do you need a break or anything? 

21 MR. RADTKE: I'm happy to I mean, if you want 

22 to take a break, that's fine. 

23 THE WITNESS: What time do we have? 

24 MR. BURCHFIELD: It's a little after -- it's 

25 about ten after noon, and my -- I don't know if this 

73 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 74 of 130 Pg ID 5361
TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 01 

1 to on t 

could r ano 

MR. 

4 (Recess 

BY MR. RADTKE: 

co 

r 4 

was 

or not, t can We 

es or an r or so. 

' t we go off reco 

ta . ) 

6 Q I'm i to hand you what's been marked as 

7 ibit 18, eviously marked as Exhibit 18. 

8 Have you ever seen this document? 

9 A I have. 

10 Q You were involved in the 1992 negotiations, 

11 correct? 

12 A I was. 

13 Q And this document is the agreements that were 

14 reached in 1992 as they related to health insurance 

15 and ancillary matters, is that accurate? 

16 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm. 

17 A It appears so. 

18 BY MR. RADTKE: 

19 Q Okay. This agreement actually was negotiated 

20 In 1992 even though the parties had extended the '89 

21 agreement to '95, correct? 

22 

23 

A 

Q 

I think that's correct. 

And this agreement was in some respects to go 

24 through 1998 or expire in 1998, correct? 

25 A March -- excuse me -- January 1, '93, through 

74 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 75 of 130 Pg ID 5362
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 1, 01 

Mar 11, 998. this ement s r 

2 previous ement '89 ing ement 

al insurance ement. 

4 Q With re ct to al insurance re 1992, 

5 were re ir retiree health care 

6 fits as a res t of is ement? 

7 A I , t so. 

8 Q re was a new PPO plan that was negotiated 

9 r act 10yees and re retirees in the 1992 

10 negotiations, correct? 

11 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

12 A For active employees and certain pre-Medicare 

13 retirees. 

14 BY MR. RADTKE: 

15 Q Was that past pre-Medicare retirees as well 

16 or just future retirees, if you remember? 

17 A According to the document, it was the future 

18 retirees. 

19 Q And how was the PPO that was negotiated 

20 different than the managed care that was in place and 

21 that you described previously? 

22 A The PPO provided for contracted rates; that 

23 is, primarily discounts by physicians, by the 

24 hospital, by other medical providers, for the benefit 

25 of the employees, so it favored the employee and 

;',;".'j'l( fh.\VH)L C:CH it~T HU'Ol<Ttt\,G s VIDEO 

\\~ .. \'\Y,hinru~ns-hlCk.(:{lm 

75 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 76 of 130 Pg ID 5363
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 6, 011 

76 

1 reti as well a care had 

2 no scount. care was strictly to allow 

s to seek or secure intervention, re 

4 iate, Wl r rd to t cal treatment 

5 of costs e r managed 

6 care I'm so the cal case management part 

7 of the program where serious certain illnesses were 

8 handl f rently and provided guidance for trying 

9 to treat those in the most cost-effective manner 

10 possible. 

11 Q So parties bargained a participating 

12 provider organization which would give discounts to 

13 employees and retirees for services? 

14 A Discounts and/or fixed fees. It was a 

15 financial arrangement. 

16 Q Would those fixed es be able to be adjusted 

17 later on? 

18 A My recollection was that certain hospital 

19 fees were based on Medicare DRG rates, and to the 

20 extent that Medicare DRG rates changed, that would 

21 also allow the hospitals to adjust those rates for 

22 the PPO plan. 

23 Q Is that sometimes referred to as usual and 

24 customary? 

25 A No. An important distinction to make, that 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 77 of 130 Pg ID 5364
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 6, 011 

in st was usual a customa 

2 e pa ever 

3 prevaili e was. r contract 

4 ar te different in t it's not 

5 r wants the cha , it's a fi 

6 e t p r has to live by that is either a 

7 scount or some r ne iated level of cost 

8 associated with the delive of that service. 

9 Q Okay. The rties also negotiate -- I'm 

10 100 ng at Page -- I'll refer -- because there is a 

11 lot of dif rent page numbers, I'll re r to the DTP 

12 page number 437. 

13 A I have that page. 

14 Q And you will see that the parties negotiated 

15 a prescription drug deductible schedule r active 

16 employees and future retirees as well, correct? 

17 A Yes, I see that. 

18 Q And is that your recollection? 

19 A It is. 

20 Q So let me ask you a hypothetical question. 

21 I'm a current employee and I retire in 1994 and I opt 

22 into the PPO plan, okay. 

23 A Uh-huh. 

24 Q At the time of my retirement, my prescription 

25 drug card deductibles would be four dollars and seven 

77 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 78 of 130 Pg ID 5365
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 16, 2011 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

lars, correct? 

A I retir 1/1/94? 

Q Ri 

A Yes. I t nk that's correct. 

Q Janua 1, 1995, would my 

scr ion drug deduct les be? 

A ve and nine. 

Q So if you retired in January of 1994, the 

rties ne iat how your deductibles would 

increase over this riod? 

A If memory serves me, the intent was that 

these would increase r anyone who retired on or 

13 a er 1993, so if you retired in '94, you would get 

14 that increase in 1995, so it was an escalator and not 

15 a retirement date. 

16 Q Isn't it true that employees -- current 

17 employees who were employed as of 1992 had an option 

18 to stay in the managed care program until March 

19 of 1995 or they could go into the PPO program? 

20 A I don't 

21 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

22 THE WITNESS: I don't remember that provision. I 

23 don't recall it. 

24 BY MR. RADTKE: 

25 Q I'll ask you to look at DTP 440, Section K. 

78 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 79 of 130 Pg ID 5366
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 16, 2011 

A see it. 

2 Q Does 

3 A s, it 

refresh your recollection? 

es. Thank you. 

4 Q So if I was that retiree and I retire 

5 Janua of 1994, I could say I want to stay in the 

6 1992 plan or I could say I want to go into the PPO 

7 an, and if I went into the PPO plan, there would be 

8 an escalator on prescription drug costs, stop loss, 

9 and deductibles for major medical, correct? 

10 A Yes. 

11 Q If I said no, I'm gOlng to stay in the '92 

12 plan, the prescription drug costs would not increase 

13 and other stop loss and deductibles would not 

14 increase, correct? 

15 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to rm. 

16 A I can't speak to the -- to your statement. I 

17 just don't have that detail at my disposal. 

18 BY MR. RADTKE: 

19 Q Okay. We know that -- I'm sorry. 

20 Current employees who retired after 

21 March 11, 1995, would have the insurance plan in 

22 effect at the time according to Paragraph K? 

23 A I see that. 

24 Q So at that point, if I retired after 

25 March 11, 1995, I wouldn't have that option? 

79 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 80 of 130 Pg ID 5367
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 2011 

A s. my recolle on, 

2 Q If ook at DTP 443, re is rt 

3 deduct s st oss increase ive 

4 percent, correct? 

5 A Yes. 

6 Q And twas ined by union and 

7 company about es and st losses 

would rease? 

A Yes. 

8 

9 

10 Q And it's accurate to say that the company and 

11 the on barga deduct es and stop loss beyond 

12 the term of this a ement, correct? 

13 A As a minimum. 

14 Q What does that mean? 

15 A That if nothing ever changed, it would at a 

16 minimum be these amounts. 

17 Q How would they ever change? 

18 A I believe Paragraph 5 on Page 1 would allow 

19 both the company and the union to make adjustments in 

20 subsequent years, and that is part of -- other 

21 negotiation processes would permit both the company 

22 and the union to do that, and that I think in 

23 reality, if memory serves me, is what happened. 

24 Q Was that -- what the company and the union 

25 could bargain later, was that related solely to the 

80 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 81 of 130 Pg ID 5368
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 6, 011 

1 

2 

4 

5 

s ss 

A No, 

fit pro 

Q So 

would allow 

I 

ams 

is it 

le? 

lieve it was whole ctrum of 

rticularly alth care. 

rstanding t Parag 5 

rties to negotiate s in 

6 retiree alth care benefits in the that would 

7 affect st retirees who were in PPO program? 

8 

9 

10 

11 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

Yes. 

Even beyond the term of the 1992 agreement? 

Yes. 

Even beyond t term of the 2002 stop loss/ 

12 deductible? 

13 A Yes, I think so. To the extent the 

14 collective bargai ng was permitted and the company 

15 and the union sired to do t, it could never be 

16 used, according to langua here, as a final 

17 of r, but in fact it could be discussed and talked 

18 about, and in reality it was in subsequent 

19 negotiations. 

20 Q If you look at DTP 447, Exhibit C, this is a 

21 health care program for employees who were hired 

22 after December 31, 1992, correct? 

23 A s. 

24 Q So when you reached the agreement in 1992, 

25 Exhibit 18, Exhibit C, Principles, did not affect 

81 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 82 of 130 Pg ID 5369
GEORGE TURC YNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, all 

1 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

was cur ly 1 as of t t 

correct? 

A It stat t it only cted rsons hi 

a r De r 31, '92, for those 10 es on 

1 ff status as ifi t A, correct. 

Q And could explain what was negotiated as 

set in it C? 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Could you reread t question, 

9 please? 

10 record , the reporter read 

11 the llowing: 

12 "Q And could you explain what was 

13 negotiated as set forth in Exhibit C?") 

14 MR. BURCHFI Object to form. 

15 A It was intended to provide a nancial 

16 vehicle for future hires to begin to accumulate funds 

17 in an IRS-approved account so that employees can 

18 accumulate monies with assistance from the company 

19 with the contributions they make to accumulate monies 

20 so that when they ultimately leave the company or 

21 retire that those funds would be available to them to 

22 be able to purchase insurances in the open market, or 

23 to the extent that an insurance plan was made --

24 still available for purchase through BorgWarner, that 

25 they would be able to access that particular plan. 

8 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 83 of 130 Pg ID 5370
ZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 0 

83 

1 n ra1 t rms, was s. 

It was runner of t we now are 

ti 1 ccounts or al care 

4 a s. 

MR. RADTKE: 

6 Q program was ne iat r future 

7 es was f rent than p that was 

8 place r current employees and current retirees, 

9 correct? 

10 A Ve much dif rent. union and 

11 company ed that there would not be any company 

12 paid or d alth care r those individuals 

13 red a er 1/1 of 1993 but instead would make 

14 available funds for those employees to purchase their 

15 own insurances, not just upon retirement but upon 

16 leaving company. 

17 Q And the benefits under Exhibit C were vested, 

18 correct? 

19 A That is correct. It says vesting was five 

20 years, that once an emplo e had five years of 

21 continuous service, that whatever monies were 

22 available in account; that is, that the 

23 employee monies were always vested. It was the 

24 company matching contribution that required five 

25 years of vesting. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 84 of 130 Pg ID 5371
GEORGE TURC YNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

16, 011 

Q is it true the , s al in 

19 2 iations was to stop let me rase 

0 reti alth care fit costs to 

for loyees? 

MR. FIELD: Object to rm. 

A It was the sire of company to control 

re costs related to post-retirement bene ts. 

8 BY MR. 

9 Q And you would agree that for future employees 

10 Exhibit C was a reduction in the benefits that they 

11 would be provided upon retirement? 

12 A I don't know -- I'm not sure I agree with 

13 your statement. You can't reduce something that is 

14 not available. It was not available for people hired 

15 after 1/1/92, so it's not a reduction. It was a 

16 dif rent form of accumulation of assets for those 

17 new hires. 

18 Q Wi respect to people who were future hires, 

19 if they lived to be a hundred, they would have 

20 company paid retiree health care benefits, correct? 

21 A No. 

22 Q Okay. 

23 A They would have available to them a subsidy 

24 by the company to continue to purchase their health 

25 care benefits. So whatever plan that they would 

84 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 85 of 130 Pg ID 5372
TURe YNOWSK 

Novembe 1, 011 

1 e t 0 ever plan y we 

1 wou d si on 

3 ir If. 

4 Q d Y the cost 

5 A cos , ri not of al plan. 

6 Q f you look at tom of 449, it 

7 s , If a rtic rea s 100 years of age and 

8 the retiree al account s en let 

9 11 y cost of health plan for 

10 retiree only. 

11 A But remember that the retiree chose whatever 

12 an that y were rtic ing in, so that could 

13 have en a supplemental plan to Medicare, it could 

14 have been a an on open mar t. So we're not 

15 saying that the company would provi plan. The 

16 company would pay r the plan that the retiree was 

17 enrolled in but for retiree only. 

18 Q Going back to that stop loss/deductible chart 

19 that we referenced early on. It's on Page DTP 443. 

20 A Yes. 

21 Q So if I retired taking my same hypothetical 

22 as before in Janua of 1994 and I opt into the PPO 

23 plan, okay -- are you with me? 

24 A Yes. 

25 Q In 1999, my deductible would be $175.89 and 

85 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 86 of 130 Pg ID 5373
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 0 

Page 86 

1 st loss wou $844.26? 

2 A Yes. 

3 Q Do recollect scussion duri 

4 1992 ne tiations re you were present where 

5 Mr. ffara stat to t union bargainers that 

6 cause parties negotiated a 401(h) plan for 

7 re employees t the company would no longer 

8 ar t retiree health care benefits r past 

9 retirees and current active employees were not 

10 vested? 

11 A Please read that question back once more. 

12 (From the record above, the reporter read 

13 the llowing: 

14 "Q Do you recollect any discussion 

15 during the 1992 negotiations where you 

16 were present re Mr. Daffara stated to 

17 the union bargainers that because the 

18 parties negotiated a 401(h) plan for 

19 future employees that the company would no 

longer argue that retiree health care 

benefits for past retirees and current 

active employees were not vested?") 

20 

21 

22 

23 THE WITNESS: No. 

24 BY MR. RADTKE: 

25 Q Do you remember any similar discussion in 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 87 of 130 Pg ID 5374
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

TURe YNOWSKI 

6, 01 

19 ') 

L- r 99 ? 

A Not i e I was ever sent. 

Q ' s Daf a? 

A was vice s of human resources 

P Muncie plant In 1992 through actually 

1999 - 1991 1995. was the lead 

ne tiator in '92 and '95 negotiations. 

(Exh it 57 marked as requested.) 

BY MR. 

Q Mr. czynowsky, you've been handed what's 

been marked as ibit 57. It's a one-page document 

that lS dated S r 14, 1992. It's to you. 

Have you ever seen this document before? 

A There is some familiarity to this, yes. 

Q Do you know - did you receive it in about 

16 1992? 

17 A I don't recall. 

18 Q Do you know who wrote this document? 

19 A No. 

20 Q It says on little -- on the bottom it 

21 says JD92151. 

22 Could that be John Daffara? 

23 A I don't know. 

24 Q Do you know what this document was 

25 referencing? 

87 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 88 of 130 Pg ID 5375
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 0 1 

1 A I 't et context of s 

It 100 li an of some sort from 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Q 

cert 

ne 

lai 

A 

Q 

A 

I can't a to it. 

You menti previously t re were 

in lai off 10 es in 1992 duri the 

iations. In Paragraph 3 it re rences the 

off emplo es. 

Yes. 

Does that refresh your recollection? 

I think 's consistent with the prior 

11 cument that said that new hires would be treated 

12 f rently r certain laid off employees, 

13 and I think that t s is re rence to that. 

14 Q In the 1992 negotiations, were there two 

15 pension plans that were available to hourly 

16 employees? 

17 A No. 

18 Q Was there a defined bene t plan and a 

19 de ned contribution plan? 

20 A There was a defined benefit plan. 

21 Subsequently a defined contribution plan was 

22 negotiated. 

23 Q When was that negotiated? 

24 A I believe it began with the '92 negotiations. 

25 Also known as a 401(k). 

88 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 89 of 130 Pg ID 5376
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 20 1 

1 Q so Para 3 it s t lai ff 

2 

4 

5 

6 

plan 

A 

es 

and 

I 

will 

So d 

401 (k) 

would a 

a choice of ion plans. 

t be tween f fit 

plan? 

e wi your inte tation of 

7 Q Wi n window period, was there a window 

8 riod to choose -- the empl s had the ability to 

9 choose between which one they wanted to go with? 

10 A Again, I don't know specific details, but 

11 it could have been a very short period of time once 

12 they returned or recalled to work that they could 

13 choose which plan they wanted to go into. 

14 Q And then the next statement or the next part 

15 of this item says, they will be covered under the 

16 company paid health care benefit plan. And then 

17 there is the Number 5 with an arrow that says, 

18 Benefits are at level at the time of retirement. 

19 A My recollection of was to allow these 

20 employees, number one, the choice of the defined 

21 benefit plan or defined contribution plan and 

22 that they would also be given a choice, if they so 

23 desired, to either continue in whatever 

24 company-provided medical plan or health care plan was 

25 available or to go into the 401(h) program, but that 

89 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 90 of 130 Pg ID 5377
TURCZYNOWSKI 

011 

90 

wa an ion we knew t wasn't to 

2 o t y would li e to rtic te n tever 

al care p an would avail le 

4 at t y retired. 

Q And fits would remain at level 

6 retirement? 

7 A No. fits would consistent wi 

8 what s es were negotiated re, cause, 

9 r, se are re retirees a er 1/1/93, so 

10 if they weren't reti y would fallen into 

11 whatever category we have here that was negotiated as 

12 part of t '92 P 

13 Q So ir t levels with re ct to 

14 prescr ion drugs and stop loss and deductible would 

15 be at time of ir retirement? 

16 A Yes. 

17 Q I want to show you what's been marked as 

18 Exhibit 19. It's the 1992 health insurance 

19 agreement. 

20 Have you ever seen this document before? 

21 A Yes. 

22 Q Do you know whether this document was ever 

23 signed? 

24 A I don't think it was, but I can't be certain. 

25 Q Okay. Is it your recollection that the 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 91 of 130 Pg ID 5378
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

Novembe 16, 01 

1 

terms t were 

fits in acco wi 

ss in al urance 

reement it wasn't even if it wasn't 

4 si ? 

A Yes. 

6 Q Did you any role in putting this 

7 document r? 

8 A We assist people locally in getting 

9 this thing updat ,and we also had the legal 

10 department at that time review this document for 

11 accuracy related to current legal legislation 

12 requirements. 

13 (Exhibit 58 marked as requested.) 

14 BY MR. RADTKE: 

15 Q You've been handed -- Mr. Turczynowsky, 

16 you've been handed a document that's been marked as 

17 ibit 58. It's a June 24, 1993, memo from you to 

18 Mr. Nuerge with an attachment -- actually, a number 

19 of attachments. 

20 Have you ever seen this document before? 

21 

22 

23 

A 

Q 

A 

It appears familiar. 

What is this document? 

These documents attempt to capture on the 

24 spreadsheets the key elements of the levels of 

25 benefits r administration purposes with respect to 

91 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 92 of 130 Pg ID 5379
GEORGE TURC YNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 011 

1 t various fits are 

to rly emplo es sala 1 es. 

3 Q If look t se page, re is a 

4 re rence to b s, 65, 66, Branch 

5 70, Branch 71, r instance. 

6 A Yes. 

7 Q What s t t mean? 

8 A Those were thi rty administrator 

9 notations, how y identifi the various catego es 

10 of individuals and where y 11 with respect to 

11 ir administrat process. So, for example, an 

12 act empl e was a Branch 1; the retirees were 

13 always deemed to be in Branch 60 categories and 

14 higher. It was just intended to separate that while 

15 they are part of the overall umbrella of the 15973 

16 policy that there were dif rent benefit provisions 

17 within that policy depending on who these emplo es 

18 or retirees were. 

19 Q So your benefits, if you're a retiree, were 

20 different depending on when you retired? 

21 A In 1992, that's what this document reflects, 

22 only in what was agreed to in 1992. 

23 Q What do you mean by that? 

24 A That's what was negotiated. So this reflects 

25 what happened with the 1992 negotiations, and it was 

92 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 93 of 130 Pg ID 5380
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 16, 01 

1 only. 

1/ 0 

1 1 of nefits r 

4 1/ /94, no doubt, you a 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

same cate ries 

hourly 

Q Okay. 

re is a 

rent levels of 

of retirees and act 

salaried. 

s obviously is a dra 

r of corrections. 

wo 

ar, is 

se Is. 

s rate id 

r se 

employees, 

in 

10 A It is. It's a cIa fication. I'm sure you 

11 have r dockets there clean copies of the 

12 t e 

13 it 59 marked as requested.) 

14 BY MR. RADTKE: 

15 Q You've been handed a document that's been 

16 marked Exhibit 59. It's a September 14, 1993, 

17 memorandum from yourself to Mr. Nuerge regarding 

18 health plans. I apologize. The attachment is not 

19 attached to this document, but you re rence an 

20 attachment with different plan design matrixes. 

21 What were you trying to convey to Mr. Nuerge 

22 in this memo? 

23 A For the salaried retirees, over time there 

24 were what we used to refer to as dif rent 

25 generations of retirees; in other words, the 

93 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 94 of 130 Pg ID 5381
GEORGE 

November 

YNOWSKI 

o 1 

1 br i n s we e y were 

2 a y were not a i a 

3 d be 100 at rtua ly same 

4 an these nerations, as pointed 

5 out r retiree group, creat a 

6 1 ty t, r one, was extremely difficult 

7 to administer, was inconsistent from an 

8 administrat st int, also very costly. So what 

9 I was suggesting re for the salaried employees is 

10 you ta all these plans where you might just 

11 have incremental differences, consolidate them into 

12 one, or at the second alternative, consolidate them 

13 into two, just two plans r the retirees. 

14 Q Was your recommendation of consolidation of 

15 plans r both hourly retirees and salary retirees? 

16 A (Nodding. ) 

17 Q Just salary? 

18 A Salaried at this point. September 14th, 

19 1993. I wish you had copies of the matrices and I 

20 could definitively say -- well, I'm obviously saying 

21 it in plans that we're only talking about -- the 

22 matrices are only talking about the salaried 

23 retirees. There is no reference here to hourly in 

24 terms of the changes that I was suggesting. 

25 Q Were those changes ever carried out with 

94 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 95 of 130 Pg ID 5382
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 6, 011 

2 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

e to s 1 reti s? 

A s. 

Q Duri o nt at Bo rne , were 

y ever carri out wi re ct to ly? 

A t I've suggest re? 

Q Yes. 

A Not to , not to my knowl 

I d only ak up to 2005. 

Q 's what I'm asking. Only up to 2005. 

I'm not asking happened a er t. 

A Okay. 

12 Q But your recollection is up until 2005 re 

13 were a number of dif rent plans r hourly retirees 

14 that -- their benefits depended on their date of 

15 retirement? 

16 A Essentially that's a correct statement. 

17 Q And the company never consolidated them into 

18 one or two benefit plans? 

19 A No, but but there were some consolidations 

20 that took place for the hourly that the union agreed 

21 to which were materially insignificant as far as any 

22 benefit changes were concerned but only in the 

23 interest of simplifying the administration and the 

24 cost of that administration as well as the 

25 understanding that retirees have of what their 

9 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 96 of 130 Pg ID 5383
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

16, 0 

p we To st of recol on, it 

may en or two br s at mo t, 

nefit level ves were not mater ally 

ct 

Q k you. 

A Just to rna the int that se 

consolidations would have been r people who had 

reti well before 1989, if memory serves me, 

9 probably be re 1986. 

10 Q With re ct to the salaried? 

11 A The hourly. Those two -- but these here 

12 would have cove all salaried employees regardless 

13 of when they retired. 

14 Q When you were speaking about what the union 

15 agreed to where re was some administrative changes 

16 and whatever else you said, that was related to 

17 retirees who retire before 1989? 

18 A I believe that was correct, yes. At that 

19 time that was the 1989 issue. 

20 MR. RADTKE: Can we go off the record for a 

21 second? 

22 (Recess was taken.) 

23 BY MR. RADTKE: 

24 Q Before we broke for lunch, Mr. Turczynowsky, 

25 you were talking about -- or I showed you a document 

96 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 97 of 130 Pg ID 5384
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novernbe 16, 0 

1 in 

2 into two plan 

3 A Yes. 

4 Q d 

or 

eve 

alari retiree al care plan 

an, correct? 

rna a p sal to on 

5 all of t f rent retiree alth 

6 care ans a single an? 

7 A Not t I recall. 

8 Q Do recall BorgWarner's 

9 team rna ng such a proposal to the union? 

10 A Not t I'm aware of. 

11 Q You've been handed a document that's been 

12 mar as ibit 24. 

13 Have you ever seen that document be re? 

14 A Yes. 

15 Q Is s t Retirement Income Program Guide 

16 Booklet from 1995? 

17 A Yes. 

18 Q You got to answer s or no. 

19 A Yes, that's what this states. 

20 Q And this is the document that was created 

21 after contract negotiations in 1995? 

22 A Yes. 

23 Q Do you know whether this document was ever 

24 signed? 

25 A I do not. 

97 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 98 of 130 Pg ID 5385
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1, 011 

1 Q we contract ti ions n 1995? 

A Yes. 

Q were a t 

4 ne tia ions, is accurat ? 

5 

6 

MR. 

A 

7 BY MR. 

FIELD: Object to 

L rtic tion. 

e contract 

rm. 

8 Q And d the rties reach a new health 

9 surance agreement in 1995? 

10 A As I recall, yes. 

11 Q I'm going to show you what's en marked as 

12 it 23. 

13 Is t t document that was drafted as a 

14 result of those contract negotiations? 

15 A I believe 's correct. 

16 Q Did you have any role in drafting that 

17 exhibit that I just handed you? 

18 A We would have had a review role of whatever 

19 dra was put together locally. 

20 Q Do you recall whether that document was ever 

21 signed by the parties? 

22 A No, I do not. 

23 Q Do you know whether the company lived up to 

24 the provided the benefits that are encompassed in 

25 this exhibit? 

98 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 99 of 130 Pg ID 5386
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSK 

Novembe 1, 011 

1 

2 

A , I 

BY . RADTKE: 

Q You've 

Ii ve y did. 

it 60 mar as re st .) 

4 handed a cument t's en 

5 

6 

mar d as ibit 60. It's a cember 5, 1996, memo 

Mr. Nuer to yourself. Have you ever seen 

7 re is attachments to memorandum. 

8 

9 

Have you ever seen se documents before? 

A I had seen this. 

10 Q If you look at page that's marked 

11 DTP 010524. 

12 Do you see that ge? 

13 A I do. 

14 Q And you will notice that there are different 

15 deductibles and stop loss and scription drug 

16 deductibles for retirees based on their date of 

17 retirement, is that accurate? 

18 A I see that, yes. 

19 Q So even as of 1997 the company continued to 

20 provide benefits in line with what was negotiated 

21 back in the 1980s and early 1990s, correct? 

22 

23 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and foundation. 

A It appears so. 

24 BY MR. RADTKE: 

25 Q And if you look at the next two pages, re 

99 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 100 of 130 Pg ID 5387
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 0 1 

1 lieve 

2 et 

3 1 

4 A s. 

100 

re r to as a mat ix, 

rent insurance features r f rent 

es tire s. 

5 Q tiree insurance atures va sed 

6 on retirement and/or ich plan 

7 rate, is t accurate? 

8 A Yes. 

9 Q Were you invo in production of se 

10 mat xes? 

11 A No. 

12 Q Who produced matr s? 

13 A That was locally in Muncie. 

14 Q I'm going to hand you a document that's been 

15 marked as Exhibit 25. It's a March 23, 1998, 

16 memorandum from Mr. Nuerge to yourself with 1998 

17 changes to the group insurance program and pensions. 

18 Have you ever seen this document be re? 

19 A I've seen this be reo 

20 Q And you are a participant in the 1998 

21 contract negotiations, is that correct? 

22 A I was. 

23 Q And is it your recollection that with respect 

24 to health care benefits that there were some 

25 modifications for retiree health care benefits that 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 101 of 130 Pg ID 5388
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 011 

were rovements 

2 3? 

MR. BURCHFIELD: 

4 A Please ari 

y're set r on 

Object to rm. 

r me what you're 

5 cifically referring to on 3. 

6 BY MR. 

7 Q It says r active loyees, retirees, and 

8 elig le survivors, and it says modifications to 

9 improve prescr ion plan. And then underneath 

10 t t it says mental alth and substance abuse for 

11 hourly actives, retirees, and eligible survivors, 

12 ch increase the number of visits that the plan 

13 provided for. 

14 A I see that, yes. 

101 

15 Q Do you recall -- I'll withdraw that question. 

16 If you look at DTP 22002, I guess it's the 

17 last page of this document. I'm sorry. I got the 

18 wrong one I'm referring to. I'm referring to a 

19 dif rent copy. I apologize. 

20 I'm going to show you what's been marked as 

21 Exhibit 27. 

22 Have you ever seen this document before? 

23 A I have seen this document before. 

24 Q Okay. Do you know who put this document 

25 together? 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 102 of 130 Pg ID 5389
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

N 16, 0 1 

1 A 

2 Q Do 

3 was an 0 

4 A I 

1 

102 

1 Muncie mana team. 

r if cover of s 

cument, had an 0 cover? 

not. 

5 Q If '11 turn to the second page, re is a 

6 discla r notice. 

7 Do you know who draft the disclaimer 

8 notice? 

9 A I do not. 

10 Q Have you ever seen be re today? 

11 A I don't recall. 

12 Q Do you recall whe r the words in this 

13 sclaimer notice were negotiated across the table in 

14 1998 while you were present in negotiation? 

15 A No, I don't. 

16 Q In this disclaimer notice in second 

17 paragraph it says, The company and the union may 

18 through the process of negotiations modi ,amend, 

19 suspend, or terminate these plans in whole or in 

20 part. 

21 Is that your understanding of how the plans 

22 could be modified, amended, suspended, or terminated? 

23 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and foundation. 

24 A I think that's one way of doing it. 

25 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 103 of 130 Pg ID 5390
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

Novembe 1, 011 

1 BY MR. RADTKE: 

2 Q ' s r one? 

3 A I'm not su I 't want to culate. 

4 Q y. Do know ther company 

str t s cument to ? 

6 A I 't recall specifically that they did or 

7 d not. 

8 Q If you look at 13 -- it be ns on 

9 13 and it continues through Page 15, the Hourly 

10 Retiree Health Insurance Outline for 1998 Insurance 

11 Review. 

12 A I see the ading. 

13 Q And then you will see that t re lS, again 

14 it's set rth on Page 14 and 15 -- that there were 

15 fferent deduct les, stop loss and prescription 

16 plan deductibles for retirees that were based on the 

17 date of retirement, correct? 

18 A Yes. 

19 Q So even if you retired under the 1989 health 

20 insurance agreement as of 1998, your stop loss, your 

21 prescription drug deductible, and your deductible 

22 remain the same, correct? 

23 A That's what this document states. 

24 MR. BURCHFIELD: Could you read that question 

25 again? 

103 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 104 of 130 Pg ID 5391
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 01 

1 

2 

(From 

104 

record rter read 

1 

"Q So even if you reti under the 

4 1989 al insurance agreement as of 

5 1998, st loss, your presc ion 

6 drug ductible, and your deductible 

7 remain same, correct?") 

8 MR. BURCHFIELD: Thank 

9 (Exh t 61 marked as requested.) 

10 BY MR. RADTKE: 

11 Q You've been handed a document that's been 

12 marked as Exhibit 61, and it's an e-mail from 

13 Mr. Nuerge, it looks like, to yourself, among others, 

14 regarding the draft of the 1998 hourly insurance 

15 highlights. 

16 Have you ever seen this document before? 

17 A I don't recall seeing this. 

18 Q Okay. Do you think it's referring to the 

19 document that's been marked as Exhibit 27, which is 

20 also called Insurance Highlights? 

21 A I don't know. 

22 Q Do you know what document it's referring to 

23 in the first line where it says, George, we 

24 understand from your comments and from Peggy 

25 Muensterman's comments that we cannot call this a 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 105 of 130 Pg ID 5392
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

16, 0 

1 t PO n w h 

s ions? 

3 A I cannot. 

4 

5 

6 

BY MR. 

Q 

i 

ibit 62 

age 105 

t we 

62 mar d as request . ) 

is a rIO, 2000, to 

7 self from Mr. r with excerpts of an old 

8 insurance boo et. 

9 

10 

11 

MR. 

A 

recall receivi this? 

FIELD: Object to rm. 

I don't know. 

12 BY MR. RADTKE: 

13 Q You don't know why Mr. Nuerge faxed those 

14 items to you? 

15 

16 

17 

A (Nodding. ) 

THE COURT RE 

THE WITNESS: 

Is that a no? 

That's a no. 

18 BY MR. RADTKE: 

19 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

20 document that's been marked as Exhibit 29. 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

with 

A 

Q 

A 

Have you ever seen this document be re? 

is document looks familiar. 

You were involved in the 2000 negotiations 

union, yes? 

Yes, on a limited basis. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 106 of 130 Pg ID 5393
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

16, 0 

106 

1 Q was an a ement was 

2000 un on? 

A s . 

4 Q On first i has a section 

5 relates t al insurance, last line of 

6 

7 

sect on it sa ,incre se deductible/stop losses 

five rcent r ar be in 2003. 

8 Do you know what at is re rring to? 

9 A One of the earlier documents we looked at 

10 tal about providing r ve percent increase 

11 through 2002. This, I believe, was intended to 

12 continue that yond 2002. In other words, this 

13 became a rollover of that ve percent; therefore, 

14 beginning 2003, if we noted it was the ten year, 

15 that this would cked up where the other one 

16 Ie off. 

17 Q Was that increase of five percent with 

18 respect to the deductibles and stop losses applicable 

19 to people who retired before January -- I'm sorry --

20 November 28, 2000, and who were on the PPO program? 

21 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. Do you 

22 understand the question? 

23 A Let's do that again, please. 

24 MR. RADTKE: Could you read that one more time? 

25 (From the record above, the reporter read 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 107 of 130 Pg ID 5394
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

01 

107 

1 

"Q Was t increase of five 

r nt re ct to les 

stop losses applicable to people who 

5 reti re Janua -- I'm sorry -

6 r 28, 2000, and who were on PPO 

7 p " ) 

8 THE WITNESS: I ink so. 

9 BY MR. RADTKE: 

10 Q In 2000, it's true that the parties reached 

11 an agreement that went from 2000 to 2005, is that 

12 true? 

13 A That's my recollection. 

14 Q I'm sorry. It went to 2006. Do you remember 

15 whether the 2000 agreement lasted until 2006? 

16 A I do not. 

17 Q Okay. On this front page it also talks 

18 about, under prescription drugs, adding a third tier 

19 with a 25 dollar co-pay. 

20 A I see that. 

21 Q Do you know whether that third tier was 

22 applicable to retirees? 

23 A I do not. 

24 (Exhibit 63 marked as requested.) 

25 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 108 of 130 Pg ID 5395
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 01 

1 BY . RADTKE: 

2 Q Mr. Tu were cument 

en rna it 63. It's titl s 

4 from t ement on Insurances Pensions, 

1 /28/2000. 

6 Have ever seen document be re? 

7 A I 't recall see is document. 

8 Q If look on second pa re is a 

9 chart that s the increases and deductibles and stop 

10 losses from 2000 to 2005. 

11 Have you ever seen t chart before? 

12 A I don't recall. 

13 Q That's line wi what was agreed to in 

14 2000 with re ct to the five rcent increases for 

15 deductibles and stop losses? 

16 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and foundation. 

17 A I'm not certain. 

18 (Exhibit 64 marked as requested.) 

19 BY MR. RADTKE: 

20 Q You've been handed a document that's been 

21 marked Exhibit 64. It's March 19, 2001, notes, 

22 discussion with George Turczynowsky, R.A. Nuerge. 

23 They're handwritten, and they're signed by 

24 Mr. Nuerge. 

25 Have you ever seen these notes before? 

08 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 109 of 130 Pg ID 5396
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 1, 0 1 

1 A 

Q d ever -- you r ng a 

3 discussion Mr. Nue the s cts 

4 are set rth in t s document? 

5 A I r t first one. 

6 Q Okay. What about the fifth one? 

7 A I don't recall that. 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Q Do you know what that is re rencing? 

A I can't certain. 

Q You're not as disappointed now? 

A Not nearly. 

Q You've been handed a document that's been 

13 marked Exhibit 35. 

14 MR. BURCH ELD: What is that? 

15 MR. 35. 

t 

16 MR. BURCHFIELD: Did you give me one of those? 

17 35? 

18 MR. RADTKE: Yes. 

19 BY MR. RADTKE: 

20 

21 

Q Does that refresh your recollection that 

there was some nd of a controversy about whether 

109 

22 the third tier or the prescription drugs deductible 

23 was applicable to retirees? 

24 

25 

A 

Q 

I have a vague recollection on this. 

What do you recall? 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 110 of 130 Pg ID 5397
GEORGE TURC YNOWSKI 

16, 0 1 

110 

1 A I issue now t 've s en is 

Ie te 

3 Q t wa issue? 

4 A 1, acco to letter, t some ing 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

was sent out in error to certain rtic s 

at t would rectifi llow-up details 

and to r the situation. 

Q And do r t to be at the third 

tier was applied to retirees? 

A In re ng s letter, I do not recall that. 

(Exh it 65 marked as requested. ) 

BY MR. RADTKE: 

Q You've been handed what's been marked as 

Exhibit 65. It's a document called BorgWarner, Inc., 

Base Plan/Major Medical Benefits r Muncie Hourly 

16 Retirees, December 1989; Effective Date, January 1, 

17 2004. 

18 Have you ever seen this document be re? 

19 A This was part of CIGNA's boilerplate version 

20 of their SPDs. They wanted to get something out to 

21 the various and sundry employees and retirees. I 

22 notice the date is January 1, 2004, so -- I do recall 

23 seeing this boilerplate type document. 

24 Q The part -- the UAW and BorgWarner did not 

25 have contract negotiations in 2004, correct? 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 111 of 130 Pg ID 5398
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

r 16, 011 

1 A Not to 

2 Q So was sent out CIGNA 

ne ions UAW? 

4 A 's correct. It was a i erplate 

5 cument. y wanted to scr they thought 

6 was ir understanding of the fits that were 

7 en sed on t retirees hourly retirees 

8 De r of 1989. 

9 Q Do you know whether this document accurately 

10 

11 

12 

13 

re ects the benefits for retirees? 

MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and foundation. 

A You know, in 100 ng at this without looking 

at additional details and cts, I can't stipulate 

14 that it does. 

15 (Exhibit 66 marked as requested.) 

16 BY MR. RADTKE: 

17 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you were handed a document 

18 t 's been marked as Exhibit 66. It's dated 

19 December 18, 1995. It's a letter from yourself to a 

111 

20 Mr. Dandelske who worked for CIGNA Health Care at the 

21 time. And there is an attachment to that letter. 

22 

23 

24 

25 

A 

Q 

A 

Have you ever seen this document? 

Yes. 

And what lS this document? 

It re ects the level of benefits for the 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 112 of 130 Pg ID 5399
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 1, 011 

1 va ious cate 

2 retire s 

Q 

a 

es of o es -- active es 

Muncie cility. 

send this to CIGNA Health? 

A As I said re, this was done on an annual 

basis to let know precisely what changes would 

112 

3 

4 

5 

6 ta place on January 1st of every year so at these 

7 could be inco rat into their administrative and 

8 cIa adjudication stems. 

9 (Exhibit 67 marked as requested.) 

10 BY MR. RADTKE: 

11 Q You've been handed a document that's marked 

12 as Exhibit 67. It's a December 16, 1996, letter from 

13 yourself to Mr. Dandelske with an attachment. 

14 Have you seen this document be re? 

15 A Yes. 

16 Q This is another document that was sent to 

17 CIGNA so that they could make the appropriate changes 

18 to the health care benefits for retirees? 

19 A For all employees effective 1/1/97. 

20 Q For all employees and hourly retirees? 

21 A For all active hourly and retired employees. 

22 Q And these changes were based on what was 

23 negotiated with the union? 

24 A That's correct. 

25 Q If you were to look at both -- and you're 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 113 of 130 Pg ID 5400
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSK 

16, 01 

it 1 

2 t 

4 

5 

6 

7 

1 t two 

s 0 

scr d 

A Yes. 

Q And 've en shown 0 r versions of these 

8 matrixes? 

9 A Yes. 

10 Q If you look at se documents and you look 

11 at only the insurance atures as they relate to 

12 retirees - I'm not going to include actives, okay? 

13 

14 

15 

16 

A Uh-huh, s . 

Q Is it accurate that the only difference 

between these two plans or se two insurance 

feature documents is that r Medicare BRO 72, 

17 the pre-Medicare 067, and the Medicare/pre-Medicare 

18 live out-of-area their stop loss and deductibles have 

19 changed, in comparing the two? 

20 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to the form and to the 

21 foundation. While he's looking at that, I note the 

22 possibility of human error in making this sort of 

23 comparison on this file like this. 

24 MR. RADTKE: Sure. 

25 A Now that I've had a chance to look at this, 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 114 of 130 Pg ID 5401
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 011 

Page 114 

1 d you ple s restate t stion, r at the 

2 stion? 

3 BY MR. RADTKE: 

4 Q rences tween the Muncie alth 

urance ans, insurance atures ef ctive 

6 Janua 1, 1996, January 1, 1997, are found in 

7 Me care BR 072, pre-Medicare BR 067, and 

8 Medicare/pre-Medicare live out-o area as it relates 

9 to stop loss and ductible? 

10 MR. BURCHFIELD: Are you asking about both pages? 

11 MR. RADTKE: All ee of them. Those three are 

12 all on the second page, those three categories. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

pa 

MR. BURCHFIELD: So you're excluding the first 

from the question? 

MR. RADTKE: I'm not excluding the first page. 

se are places where I -- the only place I can 

17 see where there are differences between the two 

18 documents. 

19 MR. BURCHFIELD: Okay. If you're not excluding 

20 the first page, then you should look at --

21 MR. RADTKE: I don't mean to exclude the first 

22 page. 

23 A Then I agree. I see that. 

24 (Exhibit 68 marked as requested.) 

25 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 115 of 130 Pg ID 5402
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

r 16, 011 

BY MR. 

Q Mr. Tur 've a a 

3 cument t' en mar i 68. It's 

4 r 17, 1997, letter in rse f to 

5 

6 

Mr. Is cuments attached, cluding 

7 

8 

9 

matrix 

A 

t is 

Is 

Yes. 

s lar to ot r cuments 

is same t of document? 

10 ibit 69 marked as requested.) 

11 BY MR. RADTKE: 

t 

12 Q You've en handed a document tIs been 

13 marked as Exhibit 69. It's a November 13, 1998, 

14 document, a letter from you to Mr. Dandelske with 

15 another matrix. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

BY 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

MR. 

Q 

Yes. 

Same thing -

Yes. 

-- as the previous exhibits, correct? 

Yes. 

(Exhibit 70 marked as requested. ) 

RADTKE: 

Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

115 

a 

a 

t I 

24 document that's dated December 9, 1999. It's another 

25 letter from you with a matrix attached. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 116 of 130 Pg ID 5403
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 6, 0 

A Actually, it's a 

2 lIe s, s, I s 

3 Q t's arne t 

4 C 

A Yes. 

tter from one of 

it. 

of in rmation p 

5 

6 t 71 marked as re sted. ) 

7 BY MR. 

8 Q You've en handed a document that's been 

9 marked Exhibi 71. It's a November 7, 2000, letter 

10 yourself to Mr. tte now at CIGNA Health 

11 wi matrixes attached, correct, as well as other 

12 items? 

13 A Yes. 

14 Q That was sent r the same purpose as the 

15 ous one? 

16 A Yes. 

17 t 72 marked as requested.) 

18 BY MR. RADTKE: 

19 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

20 document dated November 27, 2001. It's been marked 

21 as Exhibit 72. It's a letter from yourself to 

22 Mr. Arquette at CIGNA. 

23 There is a number of pages that are 

24 attached, including the last two pages are the 

25 matrixes, correct? 

116 

to 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 117 of 130 Pg ID 5404
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, 2011 

1 A s . 

2 Q If 

3 cument -

4 A 

look t 

matrix? 

5 

6 

Q Yes. DTP 12336. 

A Yes. 

7 Q You will notice 

last ge of this 

t this is the Muncie 

8 

9 

hourly al an ef ctive January 1, 2002, and 

according to prescription drug insurance 

10 atures, that group of retirees has a two-tier 

11 scription drug co-pay, is that accurate? 

12 A We're talking about Branch 071 and 

13 072? 

117 

14 Q No. I'm actually talking about Branch 067 --

15 well, 067. 

16 A On the first page? 

17 Q No. Pre-Medicare Branch 067. 

18 A I'm sorry. I found it. I see it. 

19 Q So for those retirees who retired after 

20 January 1993, according to this matrix, they had a 

21 two-tier prescription drug co-pay, correct? 

22 A Yes. 

23 (Exhibit 73 marked as requested.) 

24 BY MR. RADTKE: 

25 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 118 of 130 Pg ID 5405
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

16, 011 

I ter from 

Ca it 

A Yes. 

Q 

73. This 

rpose as 

handi you? 

A Yes. 

's t r 6, 2002. It's a 

rs If to Mr. tte at CI Health 

a a s a matrix, correct? 

s document s en marked as Exhibit 

was sent to CIGNA r the same 

o r similar matr s that I've been 

10 it 74 marked as requested.) 

11 BY MR. RADTKE: 

12 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

13 document that's en marked as ibit 74. It's an 

118 

14 October 2, 2003, letter from yourself to Mr. Arquette 

15 at CIGNA. Attached are matrixes for the 2004 hourly 

16 pension health care plans, correct? 

17 A Yes. 

18 Q This document was sent to CIGNA for the same 

19 reasons as the previous matrixes, correct? 

20 A Yes. 

21 (Exhibit 75 marked as requested.) 

22 BY MR. RADTKE: 

23 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, you've been handed a 

24 document which is an e-mail with attachments from 

25 yourself to Mr. Arquette and matrixes attached to the 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 119 of 130 Pg ID 5406
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1, 011 

1 e-mail, cor ? 

2 A s e cuments here -- mat 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

It 

1/1/ 005 

Q 1/1/2002 

t were to r in 

may rela e to 

to Mr. 

1/1/2004. 

as well. This 

way 

t other 

tte 

1 9 

s re 

is cuments 

I recei them. 

ets were 

re was some sort 

8 

9 

of -- cause of Ms. Bowles' re rence in the e-mail. 

Do you recall sending this to Mr. Arquette? 

10 A I certai y agree ttl sent him the grids 

11 ef ct 1/1/05, but whether I ever attached the 

12 other ones r whatever reason, that's not clear to 

13 me and I don't recall that. 

14 Q But with respect to the 1/1/05 changes, those 

15 were sent to Mr. Arquette for the same reason as the 

16 previous ones that were mailed to him, correct? 

17 A Yes. 

18 Q Now I'm going to ask you to take a look at 

19 Exhibit 75 that I just handed you and Exhibit 66, 

20 which is the one that's dated December 18, 1995. 

21 A Exhibit 66 and Exhibit 75. 

22 Q Correct. In Exhibit 66, pre-Medicare before 

23 December 1, 1989, were designated as BR 65, which you 

24 stated previously meant Branch 65? 

25 A That's correct. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 120 of 130 Pg ID 5407
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

r 16, 0 

A 

reti 

Pa 120 

t matri ,i s 

r Oct r 1, 1986, tired 

t is call MPP02. 

rs or 

Pre-Medicare MPP02, reti be re 10/1/86 

re 12/1/89, why that number changed, 

8 why that's different than Branch 65? 

9 Q Right. 

10 A It was a CIGNA stem protocol change. They 

11 changed their own internal designations from the 

12 B 65s under their old systems, and I don't 

13 recall what was, what it was called, but they 

14 did change to a new adjudication system, and 

15 therefore the designation protocol changed. 

16 Everything else -- everything else should have been 

17 the same in those two columns. 

18 

19 

20 

Q 

A 

Q 

So it was just an insurance company change? 

An insurance company change. 

And in no way related to the benefits that 

21 were provided? 

22 

23 

A 

Q 

None whatsoever. 

And if you look at both of them, you're going 

24 to see that other BRs became MPP03s and other letters 

25 like MIND 1 and MPP04, et cetera. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 121 of 130 Pg ID 5408
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

r 1, 011 

121 

1 A s . 

2 Q are all as a result of CI ng 

3 i s si ion? 

4 A Yes. 

Q But t si tion did not af ct 

6 fit l ? 

7 A 's correct. 

8 Q Or did not af ct the benefits? 

9 A Levels or operation of plan. 

10 Q So at t you reti in 2005 the 

11 benefits that were p ded to ly retirees be re 

12 1989 stayed same? 

13 A 's correct. 

14 Q Also r those retirees who retired a er 

15 1993 and were in the PPO plan, correct, with the 

16 exception of the negotiated changes in stop loss, 

17 deductible, and prescription drug deductible? 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

A Correct. 

Q And by 2005 there had been an '89 HIA, health 

insurance agreement, that expi in '92, correct? 

A Yes. 

Q A ' 92 health insurance agreement that expired 

in '95, correct? 

A Yes. 

Q A '95 health insurance agreement that expired 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 122 of 130 Pg ID 5409
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

16, 011 

Pa 122 

1 in '98? 

2 A Yes. 

3 Q A '98 I insurance eement t ired 

4 in 2000? 

A Yes. 

6 Q And a 2000 ement t was still in ace 

7 at time of your retirement? 

8 A I'm not sure about 2001. 

9 Q You're not sure whe r that had e red at 

10 t of 

11 A Yes. I know re was an early opener and --

12 so I don't know what, if ng, had been resolved 

13 ior to y of 2005. 

14 Q Were you involved in -- that brings me to the 

15 next question. Were you involved in contract 

16 negotiations in 2005? 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

A No. 

Q Did you have any role away from the table, at 

table? 

A I had a role away from the table. 

Q What was your role away from the table? 

A Again, to provide guidance and financial 

23 analysis and consultation and direction for the local 

24 management people in developing a strategy for the 

25 2005 negotiations. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 123 of 130 Pg ID 5410
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

1 fOIl 

Q d r ew ement 

a d union company in 2005? 

A No. 

Q You 't know what was ne tiated th 

re ct to health care fits r ? 

A No. We were in transition. 

Q You were le company? 

A Yes. 

Q Who took your spot? 

A You know, I don't recall. Rather than 

culate, I'm just going to -- I don't recall 

123 

was 

12 because there were several dif rent people involved. 

13 MR. RADTKE: Okay. If you guys would give me 

14 about five minutes, I would just quickly go through 

15 my documents and see if there is any further 

16 questions I have. 

17 MR. BURCHFIELD: Sure. 

18 MR. RADTKE: Thank you. 

19 (Recess was taken.) 

20 BY MR. RADTKE: 

21 Q Mr. Turczynowsky, do you know why the company 

22 never changed retiree health care benefits for hourly 

23 retirees until after you left the company? 

24 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to the form and 

25 foundation. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 124 of 130 Pg ID 5411
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 16, 20 

1 A Whi retirees are we tal ng 

2 ci ically? 

3 BY MR. RADTKE: 

4 Q Hourly retirees retired between 1989 and 

5 2005 you Ie t company. 

6 MR. BURCHFIELD: Same objections. 

7 A I would be culating. 

8 BY MR. RADTKE: 

9 Q You don't know? 

10 A No. 

11 Q Were you aware that BorgWarner made changes 

12 to retiree health care bene ts for hourly retirees 

13 in 2006? 

14 A I was aware of some changes made in 2006. 

15 Q Were you consulted by the company prior to 

16 those changes being made? 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

A 

Q 

A 

Q 

A 

No. 

Were you consulted afterwards? 

Not by the company. 

Were you consulted by anyone? 

There was an issue that came up with regard 

22 to certain employees and a matter handled in the 

124 

23 courts in Indianapolis, and I was asked to respond to 

24 certain issues that I may be aware of, and I was not 

25 able to attend for personal reasons. 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 125 of 130 Pg ID 5412
TURCZYNOWSKI 

November 16, all 

1 Q Are al a trial that 0 cur 

2 invo t UAW Bor rner? 

3 A Yes. 

4 Q You r some work related to t t 

5 lawsuit? 

6 A No, no work. 

7 Q You were as to attend trial 

8 were unable to do so? 

9 A But I was unable to do so. 

10 Q Were you aware t in 2009 the company made 

11 changes to retiree health care benefits for hourly 

12 retirees and surviving spouses? 

13 A I saw perhaps inadvertently a document that 

14 was presented by counsel yeste y where I happened 

15 to notice something about a 2009 change, but I was 

16 not I didn't get into details and we didn't get 

17 into that because that was past my time with the 

18 company. 

19 Q You just learned of it yesterday? 

20 A Yes, yes, indeed, indeed. 

21 MR. RADTKE: I don't have anything further. 

125 

22 MR. BURCHFIELD: Okay. I have no questions. The 

23 witness would like to read and sign the transcript. 

24 (Whereupon the deposition concluded 

25 at 3:24 p.m. on November 16, 2011.) 

... ~I 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 126 of 130 Pg ID 5413
GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKI 

16, 01 

Page 126 

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS 

ss: 

2 COUNTY OF COO K 

3 

4 The wi and foregoing deposition of the 

5 aforementioned witness was taken before DONNA L. 

6 POLICICCHIO, C.S.R., and Notary Public, at the place, 

7 date, and time aforementioned. 

8 There were present during the taking of the 

9 deposition the previously named counsel. 

10 The said witness was first duly sworn and was then 

11 examined upon oral interrogatories; the questions and 

12 answers were taken down in shorthand by the undersigned, 

13 acting as stenographer and Notary Public; and the within 

14 and foregoing is a true, accurate, and complete record of 

15 all of the questions asked of and answers made by the 

16 aforementioned witness, at the time and place hereinabove 

17 referred to. 

18 The signature of the witness was not waived, and 

19 the deposition was submitted, pursuant to 

20 Rules 30(e) and 32(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for 

21 the United States District Court, to the deponent per 

22 copy of the attached letter. 

23 The undersigned is not interested in the within 

24 case, nor of kin or counsel to any of the parties. 

25 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 127 of 130 Pg ID 5414
1 Witness my official signature and seal as Notary 

2 Public in and for Cook County, Illinois, on this 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

day of ____ ~ _____________ , A.D. 

OFFICIAl. SEAl. 

DONNA L POI.ICICCHIO 

NOTARY PUBLIC· STATE OF fU.1NOIS 

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 02102113 

DONNA L. POLICICCHIO, C.S.R. 

License No. 084-003740 

Notary Public 

311 South Wacker Drive 

Suite 300 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Phone: (312) 386-2000 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 128 of 130 Pg ID 5415
GEORGE TURCZYNOWS 

16, 011 

1 

2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

3 

4 WILLIAM L. SLOAN, EUGENE J. 

WINNINGHAM, JAMES L. KELLEY, 

5 on behalf of themselves and a 

similarly situated class, 

6 

Plaintiffs, 

7 

-vs8 

BORGWARNER, INC., BORGWARNER 

9 FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLANS, and 

BORGWARNER DIVERSIFIED 

10 TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS, INC., 

11 Defendants. 

12 

No. 09-cv-l0918 

13 I, GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKY, being first duly sworn, on 

14 oath say that I am the deponent in the aforesaid 

15 deposition taken on November 16, 2011; that I have read 

16 the foregoing transcript of my deposition, consisting of 

128 

17 Pages 1 through 128, inclusive, and affix my signature to 

18 same. 

19 

20 

GEORGE TURCZYNOWSKY 

21 

22 Subscribed and sworn to 

before me this day 

23 of 

24 

25 Notary Public 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 129 of 130 Pg ID 5416
TURCZYNOWSKI 

Novembe 16, all 

E: Sloan 

DEPONENT: Geo 

PAGE LINE 

SIGNED 

rner 

Turczynowsky 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

REASON: 

CHANGE: 

Reporter: Donna L. Policicchio 

129 

DATE TAKEN: 11/16/11 

ERRATA SHEET 

DATE 

2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 103-11 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 130 of 130 Pg ID 5417