Opinion ID: 787335
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This is the total liability of the Company.

Text: 25 (2) The union stated it did not care to when [sic] these completes were distributed. 26 (3) The Company can distribute the rest of its circulation in any manner and to whomever it chooses so long as it is not over three pieces. 27 It is clearly understood that management need not concern itself that these completes be distributed to single copy distributors. 28 (4) The union stated what it was giving to management was Bulk Delivery as opposed to its current odd counts etc. delivery. 29 (5) The union stated management attorneys should write the language which would reflect this understanding. 30 Note: It is important that the language reflect this is a modification of the union's jurisdiction on inserting the total product — and that its only obligation is to a number (40,000 completes) and further the rest of the distribution would be at the discretion of the company. 31 (J.A. 76-77). 32 Also of relevance in this appeal is the CBA's clause providing that all grievances first be presented to a Local Joint Standing Committee, and then if still unresolved, to arbitration: 33 Section 7. Grievance Procedure. A local joint standing committee of two representatives shall be selected by the Publisher and a like committee of two shall be selected by the Union, and in case of a vacancy, absence or refusal of either of such representatives to act, another shall be appointed to serve in his/her stead. To this Local Joint Standing Committee shall be referred all questions which may arise as to the construction to be placed on any clause of this contract, or alleged violation thereof, all disputes regarding discharged employees, which cannot be settled otherwise .... This Committee shall not have authority to create new conditions or add new provisions to this contract nor shall it have any authority with regard to interim openings. Should this Local Joint Standing Committee be unable to agree within ten (10) days then it shall refer the matter to a board of arbitration.... The decision of this arbitration board on any matter referred to it shall be by majority vote and shall be final and binding upon both parties. 34 (J.A. 41) (emphasis added). 35 We now turn to the historical facts giving rise to the present dispute. For over thirty years, the Sunday edition of the St. Paul Pioneer Press was distributed to home delivery carriers in bundles of separate sections, such that the newspapers were not fully inserted when they left the mailroom. In early 1990, the Union learned that the Sunday papers were being delivered to customers' homes as fully-inserted single packages, despite continuing to leave the printing facility in separate bundles. The Union brought this issue to the attention of the Company, contending that any insertion work done by home delivery carriers contravened the CBA. 36 The Company responded that the delivery persons were independent contractors, as opposed to employees, who were making autonomous decisions to insert the papers and deliver them as such, and over whom the Company had no control. This dispute continued informally until the Union filed a formal grievance in September 2000, claiming violations of the jurisdictional provision of the CBA, Section 6, based on the Company's alleged use of non-Union personnel to perform insertion work. The grievance was submitted to the Local Joint Standing Committee, which could not resolve the matter. Notably, the Company did not argue the applicability of Addendum No. 4 in support of its position before the Joint Standing Committee. 37 Subsequently, in September 2001, the matter went to arbitration before a single neutral arbitrator (the Arbitrator). 3 The stipulated issue statement presented the following questions to the Arbitrator: Did the Company violate its jurisdictional agreements with Local 4 by having inserting work performed at distribution centers by non-union personnel? If so, what is the appropriate remedy? (J.A. 19). 38 In contrast to its case before the Joint Standing Committee, before the Arbitrator, the Company argued the applicability of Addendum No. 4 to resolve the insertion work dispute. Specifically, the Company argued that, under the plain terms of Addendum No. 4, the Company had the right to hire non-Union employees to perform any insertion work over 20,000 (previously 40,000) complete Sunday papers per week and the insertion work associated with making up the separate parts described in paragraph A.2. of Addendum No. 4. 39 Notably, the Union raised no objection to the Company's introduction of Addendum No. 4 as part of its case before the arbitrator. On the question of whether Addendum No. 4 resolved the insertion work dispute, the Union argued that it did not, and, in fact, argued that Addendum No. 4 supported its position. According to the Union, the reference to 20,000 papers in Addendum No. 4 refers to newspapers that will only be used for single-copy sales. Additionally, the Union argued that if Addendum No. 4 truly means what the Company says it means, the Company would have argued the applicability of Addendum No. 4 during the earlier stages of the dispute. Also noteworthy is the fact that the Union raised no objection before the Arbitrator to the Company's introduction of the 1978 Internal Memo as part of its case. 40 On February 24, 2002, the Arbitrator issued his Opinion and Award in which he denied the Union's grievance. According to the Arbitrator, [o]n its face, Section 6 appears to reserve to the bargaining unit all mailing room work, which included the inserting of newspapers, without regard to the location of its performance. (J.A. 26). The Arbitrator determined, however, that although Section 6 may have originally reserved all insertion work to the bargaining unit, the Union relinquished a substantial amount of such work to the Company's discretion via Addendum No. 4 in exchange for significant economic concessions by the Company. In this regard, the Arbitrator specifically found that [w]hat the Union retained was the right to fully insert the 20,000 (40,000 originally) complete Sunday newspapers specified in the Addendum as well as all of the insertion work associated with making up the separate parts described in paragraph A.2. of Addendum No. 4. (J.A. 28-29). The Arbitrator found that Addendum No. 4 permitted the Company to hire non-Union employees to perform the balance of any other insertion work needed. 41 In rejecting the Union's argument that the 20,000 papers (40,000 originally) referred only to single-copy sales, the Arbitrator relied upon the complete absence of any language in Addendum No. 4 restricting the use or distribution of the 20,000 Sunday papers that must be fully inserted by bargaining members. (J.A. 27). The Arbitrator also relied upon the explicit statement in Addendum No. 4 that the Company `shall have no restrictions' on the method of bulk distribution. Id. 42 Moreover, the Arbitrator also stated that the 1978 Internal Memo bolstered his reading of Addendum No. 4. Indeed, the Arbitrator found the 1978 Internal Memo is not only the best evidence of the Addendum's negotiated intent, on this record, it is the only meaningful evidence of bargaining history; no contrary documentary evidence of bargaining history was introduced and none of the witnesses who testified at arbitration were participants in that round of bargaining. Id. The Arbitrator further explained as follows: 43 While the internal memo represents the view of the Company's negotiators and is not signed by any Union official, a careful reading of the memo and the Addendum reveals two important considerations regarding the reliability and accuracy of the memo. First, the Addendum clearly reflects that the Company traded significant economic concessions in return for the jurisdictional modification; it provided a dental plan, increased pension contributions, and increased hospitalization benefits. The magnitude of these benefits strongly suggests that the jurisdictional change was also intended to be a substantial concession to the Company. Second, the content of the memo closely parallels the content of the Addendum, which the Union did sign; in other words, what the memo says were the terms of the settlement actually turned out to comprise the terms of the Addendum. For example, the memo says that the ability to take vacations a day at a time were one of the terms of settlement. A provision allowing for day at a time vacation appears as the final benefit of the Addendum. For another example, the memo says a dental plan would be provided as part of the trade-off. The Addendum text provides for a dental plan as it was described in the memo. The same is true of the increased pension and hospitalization benefits; they appear in the text of the Addendum as they were described in the memo. This strongly suggests that the memo was a true reflection of the parties' intent in the negotiations for the Addendum. 44