Opinion ID: 423548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Addendum Agreement

Text: 26 The district court found that Safeway had breached the conciliation agreement. In so ruling, the court determined that the addendum agreement, under which the charging employees agreed to retain their preconciliation agreement seniority dates in exchange for Safeway's promise to protect them from economic harm if they were laid off because of those seniority dates, was not intended permanently to replace the obligations in the original conciliation agreement. Rather, the district court found that the addendum was intended to provide time for Safeway to negotiate with Local 745 and implement the agreed retroactive seniority dates at the end of the term of the addend[um] with the support of the union if possible. Safeway argues that this finding was clearly erroneous. Specifically, the company claims that it was excused from providing retroactive seniority to three of the charging parties 17 because it fulfilled its obligations under the addendum agreement. The company's position is that it agreed to protect the men from layoffs in exchange for their agreement to waive any claim to the seniority dates of the original conciliation agreements. 27 We must disagree. Considerable evidence was presented at trial concerning the negotiation between the parties which preceded the signing of the addendum. 18 Two commission officials who participated in the negotiation testified at trial that the discussions with Safeway officials focused on how to provide additional time in which Safeway could resolve its difficulties with the Union. 19 Safeway's employee relations director admitted that he never told the EEOC negotiators that Safeway intended for its obligations to end after expiration of the two year period. Also, the charging parties testified that their agreement to the addendum was based on their understanding that after the two year period they would receive their promised seniority dates. Moreover, there is no language in the addendum itself to indicate an intention to supersede the original agreement for a period longer than the two years specified. 28 In view of this evidence, we cannot hold as clearly erroneous the district court's finding that the addendum agreement was intended only to allow Safeway a two year grace period during which it could solve its problems with the Union. Once Safeway refused to award retroactive seniority at the end of that period, the court was correct in finding that a breach had occurred.