Opinion ID: 2581073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Even Assuming Contract Interpretation Were Appropriate, Hisle's Wages Were Governed by the Unmodified Previous Collective Bargaining Agreement

Text: Though interpretation of the CBA is forbidden under Section 301, the facts of this case demonstrate the regular rate of pay which governed the relationship during the pertinent time frame did not increase. Prior to execution of the 1997 CBA the relationship between Todd and its employees was governed by a previously executed and ratified CBA that took effect in 1993 (1993 CBA). The 1993 CBA established standard wages which increased annually and varied according to the respective job, as specified in wage scales on which the employee's compensation was based. CP at 34; see also CP at 48 (Schedule A wage scale). For example as of April 1, 1996, a Carpenter Journeyman made $15.25 per hour, an Op Engineer Journeyman made $15.85 per hour, and a Laborer-On Shipboard Work made $14.25 per hour, to name a few. See CP at 48. Wages also increased every three months commensurate with cost of living changes. See CP at 44. Though the 1993 CBA was set to expire by its terms on July 31, 1996, it was to continue in full force ... from and for year to year thereafter, unless either party shall ... notify the other party in writing of any desire to make changes in or to terminate this Agreement.  CP at 47 (emphasis added). Thus, until the new CBA was executed and took effect, the 1993 CBA between Todd and its employees governed the relationship, rights, and  most importantly  wages. Negotiations for a replacement CBA commenced in February 1996 but did not finalize until the arbitrator's order resolving the impasse between Todd and PSTMC, resulting in the execution of the 1997 CBA which by its own terms did not take effect until late November 1997. [14] Thus the operative CBA prior to that effective date was the 1993 CBA. To sustain the majority's position, therefore, one must conclude the one-time payment modified the 1993 CBA and the hourly rates it established. The basis for this alleged modification of the wage rates as enumerated in the 1993 CBA provides as follows: Wage and Fringe Increase Effective 8-1-98 $.61/hour Wage/Fringe This increase will be applied to all Schedule A rates listed above except Firewatch. Retroactive payments of $.60 for each non-Washington State Ferry Project attendance hour from August 1, 1996 until the execution date of the contract (less applicable employee deductions) shall be made to all non-Washington State Ferry Project employees that were actively employed on the execution date of the contract or had seniority rights as of the execution date of the contract. CP at 232 (emphasis added). The only express language alluding to a wage increase appears in the header and the first paragraph referencing the Schedule `A' rates. Id. This undoubtedly references the wage schedule immediately preceding the clause at issue, which lists all of the different positions  and the respective wage thereto  an employee could hold while working for Todd. The ultimate question becomes whether the above quoted provision in the 1997 CBA altered the previously established wages specified in the 1993 CBA. In other words, did the retroactive payment clause cited above increase the wages established under the 1993 CBA by $.60 per hour? For this payment to modify the previous CBA it necessarily would have to apply across the board, meaning every employee whose wages were governed by the 1993 CBA and who worked overtime hours between August 1, 1996 and execution date of the 1997 CBA would be entitled to overtime compensation, regardless of whether those employees were covered by the 1997 CBA. Yet the record suggests the contrary. There is no indication the 1993 CBA applied selectively to one group of employees (those persons still employed when the new CBA was executed), but not others (those persons covered by the 1993 CBA but no longer employed on the execution date the replacement CBA). Counsel for Hisle readily conceded this at oral argument, admitting no employee would be entitled to such retroactive payment  even if that employee worked overtime hours after August 1, 1996  unless the employee was still employed at the time the new CBA was executed. The express language of the retroactive payment clause affirms this, as the only employees entitled to such payment had to be actively employed on the execution date of the contract or had seniority rights as of the execution date of the contract.  CP at 232 (emphasis added). Nevertheless the majority holds this $.60 per hour one-time payment retroactively altered the wages established under the 1993 CBA, despite that agreement's protection of employees until the new CBA was executed. Thus under the majority's holding an employee is denied a raise specified in an allegedly modified CBA despite that agreement's protection of his employment and governance of his regular rate. RCW 49.46.130(1). While both he and his colleagues perform the same services during the same hours for the same employer, only his colleagues are enjoying the fruits of an additional $.60 per hour. This result is unacceptable. The majority's conclusion is also entirely inconsistent with the facts of this case. The bargaining representatives from both sides of this CBA testified the payment was intended to induce the employees to ratify the proposed CBA, not retroactively increase the employees' wages. Michael Marsh, Todd's secretary and general counsel, testified by declaration that: In addition, as an inducement to convince the employees to ratify the tentative agreement, Todd had agreed to pay a lump sum to eligible employees, calculated by multiplying $.60 by each employee's non-Washington State Ferry Project attendance hours (meaning the hours that the employee was at Todd performing work on something other than one of the Washington State ferries) between August 1, 1996 until the contract was executed. CP at 15 (emphasis added). The testimony of Robert Scott, representative for PSTMC, corroborated Marsh's account: Q. This lump sum payment that was paid upon ratification of the  excuse me, not upon ratification but upon the signing of the 1997 contract, did you feel that that was  when that amount was being negotiated that that was necessary to induce the bargaining unit members to vote to ratify the contract? A. Yes. Q. Was that a critical part of your thinking? A. Yes. Like I said, the holidays were coming and people  yeah. CP at 156 (emphasis added). According to Mr. Scott, the payment was made not only to induce ratification, but it was a term necessary to effect ratification. Id. Both representatives expressly rejected the notion the payment was intended to retroactively increase the employees' wages. See CP at 15-16, 153. Nowhere in the record is any indication to the contrary. Because the wage rates provided in the 1993 CBA did not increase by $.60 per hour for every employee protected by that agreement, it in no way altered those employees'regular rate at which [they were] employed. RCW 49.46.130(1). As a matter of law then, the employees were rightfully paid every cent of overtime compensation owed pursuant to the MWA.