By PETER HUSSMANN
Attorneys for Whirlpool and the UAW are arguing for and against an effort to notify the 3,300 retireed Newton Maytag workers that they are part of a class action lawsuit that looks for court approval to change their health insurance coverage, recent legal filings in the case show.
Last week, the UAW filed a motion in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal a federal district court's ruling in late June that certified the Newton Maytag retirees as the class members in the lawsuit brought by Whirlpool in 2008 claiming it has the right to change retiree health coverage, a position the UAW claims is a vested benefit that cannot be changed.
In asking for the review by the appeals court, the UAW claims it is not the proper counsel for the class due to inherent conflicts between the union and retired union members. The Union is asking the appeals court to reverse Judge James Gritzner's June 22 ruling ordering the UAW to act as class counsel for Maytag retirees.
In addition, the UAW filed a motion in federal district court in Des Moines asking that Judge Gritzner stay his order that members of the defendant class (Maytag retirees) be notified of their involvement in the lawsuit. The Union is asking for the stay until the appeals court makes a decision in order to avoid potential confusion.
In arguing against the issuance of the stay, Whirlpool lawyers argue that the UAW stands little chance of succeeding with its appeal on the certification of the class. A reversal, Whirlpool argues, would only be allowed if the district court "abused its discretion in certifying the defendant class," a finding the appeals court likely won't make.
Whirlpool also argues that the Union would suffer no irreparable harm should the notice of class be sent to Maytag retirees.
"First, it appears greater confusion would be generated by not sending a notice," Whirlpool states. "The Certification Order was the subject of at least two local media reports. Second, it is apparent the retirees are following the progress of this litigation. Thus, it is likely that retirees are anticipating a notice."
In a subsequent court filing, lawyers for the UAW argue the stay should be granted because of the potential for confusion should the class be modified.
They note language from the 10th Circuit that notes "the potential confusion that could result if the (court) were to vacate or modify the class certification order after notice has already been disseminated to class members counsels against proceeding to issue notice at least until the Circuit has resolved the request to take the appeal."
The UAW also disagrees with Whirlpool's contention that Maytag retirees are anticipating notice of their inclusion in the defendant class.
"Contrary to the company's speculation in its response, there is no evidence that 'retirees are anticipating a notice...," the filing states. "Indeed, issuance of a notice at this time may itself cause retirees to expend time and resources responding to it that may prove unnecessary depending on the outcome of the Union's petition and appeal."
While lawyers for the UAW and Whirlpool await decisions concerning the request for the stay and whether the Eighth Circuit will take up the appeal, Judge Gritzner moved the litigation in another direction in a text order issued today.
The parties were ordered to advise the court by July 23 whether there is any reason why the court should not proceed on Whirlpool's pending motion for summary judgment.
You can read Whirlpool's and the UAW's recent filings below.
Recent Comments