Newton Independent

UAW says court should delay ruling on Whirlpool's motion to dismiss lawsuit over Maytag retiree health insurance

By PETER HUSSMANN

Lawyers for the UAW say a federal district court judge should delay ruling on Whirlpool's motion for summary judgment in its health insurance coverage class action lawsuit against Newton Maytag retirees until after the court of appeals has decided whether it will take up the union's petition to have the court's certification of class order overturned.

Whirlpool, in court documents both sides filed on Friday, counters by saying that the litigation is in its late stages and delaying a ruling on its motion to have the case dismissed would likely push the trial date back once again from its now-scheduled December start.

The world's largest appliance maker also says the union stands little chance to have the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals take up the appeal of the district court's order that the union act as class representative for the more than 3,300 retired Newton Maytag workers impacted by Whirlpool's decision to cut medical benefits to retirees.

In its petition for summary judgment, Whirlpool argues that it was in its authority to change the health care benefits to retirees making a trial on the matter unnecessary.

Federal District Court Judge James Gritzner has yet to rule on whether he will proceed. The Eighth Circuit has also yet to rule on whether it will take up the union's petition to appeal Gritzner's order setting the class.

You can read the most recent filings below.

Download UAW brief in opposition to proceeding with motion for summary judgment ruling

Download Whirlpool support for proceeding on ruling for motion for summary judgment

Whirlpool resists the UAW's appeal to Eighth Circuit

By PETER HUSSMANN

Lawyers for Whirlpool are resisting the UAW and Local 997's petition to appeal a federal district courts recent class certification ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last Friday, lawyers for Whirlpool filed notice of its opposition to the UAW's request that the federal appeals court overturn federal district court Judge James Gritzner's ruling that certified the more than 3,300 retired Newton Maytag workers as the defendant class in the lawsuit over changes to their health care benefits and required lawyers for the UAW to act as class counsel.

The UAW is asking that the appeals court overturn only one aspect of the federal district court judge's order, namely that the UAW be required to act as class counsel.

In its opposition brief, lawyers for Whirlpool note that the likelihood of the lawsuit being dismissed is minimal. They note that a Dec. 6 trial date is set and should the Eighth Circuit agree to hear the appeal, a possibility exists that the appeal and the trial would be going on at the same time.

Whirlpool also argues that the UAW's contractual obligation to represent retirees is common, no conflicts of interest as alleged by the UAW exists, there is no requirement for retirees' to consent to representation and that the retirees have already granted that consent.

In addition to petitioning for an appeal to the Eighth Circuit, 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.

Whirlpool has also filed a resistance to that request.

Both parties have been given until Friday to state why Judge Gritzner should not now move forward with Whirlpool's motion for summary judgment.

Whirlpool, UAW lawyers haggle over class notice stay in Maytag retiree health insurance lawsuit

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.

Download Whirlpool resistance to stay

Download UAW arguement for issuing stay

UAW appeals decision ordering it to represent Maytag retirees in health insurance class-action lawsuit

By PETER HUSSMANN

Lawyers for the UAW and Local 997 are appealing a federal judge's ruling that orders them to represent Maytag retirees in the class action lawsuit brought by the company over changes to their health care plans.

Earlier this week, the UAW filed a petition in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal Judge James Gritzner's order that certified the 3,000 plus defendant class as former Newton Maytag workers, designated the Union as the class representative and ordered the union attorneys to represent the defendant class in the lawsuit brought by Maytag and Whirlpool against the retirees in 2008.

In its request to appeal, the UAW is asking the Circuit Court for a "determination that the Union is not an appropriate class representative and that its attorneys are not appropriate class counsel." In addition, lawyers for the UAW are asking that the certification class order "be reversed."

In addition to the Eighth Circuit filing, the UAW filed a motion earlier this week in federal district court in Des Moines asking that Judge Gritzner stay his order to provide notice to the defendant class.

"The Union requests that issuance of the notice to the defendant class be stayed pending resolution of the Union's Petition for Permission to Appeal, and if the Petition is granted, resolution of the appeal," the filing states. "Staying issuance of the notice under these circumstances would promote efficiency and prevent confusion for the members of the class in the event that the Union's appeal is successful. Moreover, if the Union's petition or appeal is not successful, a short delay in issuing notice will not negatively impact the class members because the class is a mandatory class that requires no action on their part."

Responses to the request for the stay are due by July 26.

You can read both filings below:

Download Stay issues of class

Download Eighth Circuit Appeal

UAW ordered to represent Maytag retirees in class action lawsuit over medical benefits

By PETER HUSSMANN

After nearly two years of legal wrangling, a federal judge this week defined the class members included in Whirlpool's lawsuit against former Maytag workers who had their retiree medical benefits changed, ordered that the UAW and its lawyers act as class counsel for the retirees and defined the issues before the court moving forward.

Judge James Gritzner on Tuesday filed a 30-page order that grants Whirlpool's request for certification of class as the United Auto Workers union, its Newton Local 997 and all persons who:

• are or were employee participants, dependents or participants, or spouses of participants in the Maytag employee benefit plans that provided for retiree medical benefits;
• who worked at the Newton, Iowa, plants and as to whom the Union had been the participants' collective bargaining representative at the time of and prior to their retirement from Maytag and/or Whirlpool;
• who retired from Maytag and/or Whirlpool before July 31, 2008, or, in the case of dependents or surviving spouses, who received benefits by virtue of retirees from Maytag and/or Whirlpool on or before July 31, 2008, and;
• who are living and thus affected by (Whirlpool's) modification to retiree medical benefits.

The class identified in the order consists of approximately 3,314 people living in 25 states and Puerto Rico, though about 94 percent live in Iowa.

Judge Gritzner also ordered that the UAW and its lawyers, Robert Seltzer and Mark Hedberg, act as class representative for the Maytag retirees in the action brought by Whirlpool in July 2008. He rejected the Union's arguments against representation of the class based on lack of consent from retirees and potential conflicts of interest with retirees over past contract negotiation practices.

Finally, the judge defined the issues to be determined in the class action lawsuit:

• whether the retiree medical benefits schedule provided for in the July 5, 2004, collective bargaining agreement entered into by the Company and the Union expired on July 31, 2008;
• whether the Company has the unilateral right to enroll class members in the Whirlpool Corporation Group Benefit Plan, and;
• whether the Company is entitled to costs and attorney's fees.

The class action lawsuit is currently scheduled for trial in federal court in Des Moines beginning Dec. 6.

You can read the order below.

Download Maytag Class Action Order

Maytag dishwashers recalled due to fire hazard

Newton Independent

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission today announced the voluntary recall of 1.7 million Maytag dishwashers due to a problem with a heating element that can pose a serious fire hazard.

The dishwashers, sold nationwide from February 2006 through April 2010, include Maytag, Amana, Jenn-Air, Admiral, Magic Chef, Performa by Maytag and Crosley brands.

Whirlpool, which bought Maytag in 2006, has received 12 reports of dishwasher heating element failures that resulted in fires and dishwasher damage, including one report of extensive kitchen damage from a fire. No personal injuries have been reported.

Consumers are being asked to immediately stop using the recalled dishwashers, disconnect the electric supply and contact Whirlpool at 1-800-544-5513 to verify if their dishwasher is included in the recall. If the dishwasher is included, consumers may either schedule a free in-home repair or receive a rebate following the purchase of certain new Maytag brand stainless steel tub dishwashers.

Consumers should not return the recalled dishwashers to the retailer where purchased. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

For more information, including a listing of the serial number of the models impacted, go here.

Maytag retiree health benefits trial continued

By PETER HUSSMANN

Trial in Maytag's class action lawsuit against retirees from its former Newton production plant over health care benefits slated this summer has been continued.

On Monday, U.S. Judge James Gritzner ordered the continuance of the June 4 pretrial conference and July 12 trial "until further order of the court."

Last week, the court heard oral arguments over the issue of class certification and representation. Maytag is attempting to certify the class of defendants as those 3,000 plus Newton retirees covered by its retiree health care plan and proposes the UAW as the proper class counsel in the action. The UAW says it has never been given the authority to represent the retirees and may have a conflict if required to do so.

Judge Gritzner has yet to rule on the matters.

In his order Monday, the judge told lawyers for Maytag and the UAW to confer and provide the court with a new trial date, any proposed scheduling deadlines and whether additional scheduling conferences will be required.

Also on Monday, lawyers for Maytag filed exhibits presented during last week's oral arguments. The exhibits include a list of UAW retiree benefits cases, portions of former UAW Local 997 leaders Max Tipton's and Lonnie Whites's deposition transcripts, a UAW complaint in a case filed in Michigan, portions of the grievance procedures from the 1971 and 2004 UAW and Maytag collective bargaining agreements.

Maytag, UAW lawyers argue over motion to certify class

By PETER HUSSMANN

Lawyers for Maytag and the UAW presented arguments for more than 90 minutes Thursday afternoon in connection with the issue of class certification and class counsel representation in Maytag's lawsuit against the union on its right to change health care coverage for more than 3,000 of its retired Newton workers.

The issue has been playing out in the federal court system for nearly two years as Maytag argues that the class should be identified as the retired Maytag workers from the now-closed Newton plant with the UAW the appropriate legal counsel.

The UAW, however, has resisted, for a variety of reasons, including that they have not been given consent by the Maytag retirees and that its representation may be deemed a conflict of interest.

Judge James Gritzner gave the parties one week to supplement the record with materials identified during Thursday's oral arguments. He reserved ruling on the motion to certify and class representation. It is uncertain when such a ruling may be made.

Whirlpool reports 141 percent increase in net earnings

Newton Independent

Whirlpool Corp. today reported that first quarter net earnings rose 141 percent to $164 million compared to $68 million in the same period a year ago.

Sales were up 20 percent to $4.3 billion compared to $3.6 billion in the first quarter of 2009. The company recorded an operating profit of $241 million for the quarter compared $166 million in the previous year.

You can read the release here.

Hearing to be set on class certification in lawsuit over Maytag retiree health benefits

Newton Independent

A federal judge has ordered attorneys for Whirlpool and the UAW to get together and come up with a date for a hearing to be held on the certification of the class in the lawsuit the world's largest appliance manufacturer filed against retired Maytag plant workers over its right to change their health care benefits.

U.S. District Court Judge James Gritzner gave the parties until Friday to set a hearing date on the certification matter. Whirlpool is pushing to certify the class involved in the lawsuit as the 3,000 plus retired Maytag workers impacted by its decision to change health benefits, as well as mandating the UAW serve as counsel for the class.

The UAW has resisted, for a variety of reasons, including that they have not been given consent by the Maytag retirees and that its representation may be deemed a conflict of interest.

In February, Judge Gritzner ordered the parties to submit arguments on the class designation "in light of the dismissal of the mirror-image lawsuit" the UAW brought against Whirlpool that was later transfered from Michigan to Iowa and voluntarily dismissed.

Gritzner noted that the arguments presented to date "brought additional issues to the court's attention," specifically the UAW's contention that it should not be required to represent the retired members of the UAW Local 997.

In ordering that a hearing be set on the class designation, Judge Gritzner told the parties to be ready to address the following issues:

"1. How adding the Union as a member of the putative class would affect the Court's analysis of Federal Rule(s) of Civil Procedure; and

2. Regardless of whether the retirees may have consented to Union representation generally, whether the circumstances of this case present an actual conflict of interest, and whether the retirees have consented to or can consent to an actual conflict of interest in representation." 

Judge denies request to redepose Shaver in Maytag retiree health benefits suit

By PETER HUSSMANN

Whirlpool's request to take additional testimony from the chair of the UAW Local 997's Retiree Council over comments he made to the local newspaper was denied by a federal magistrate judge on Tuesday.

Attorneys for Whirlpool had asked the court to allow them to redepose Larry Shaver in the company's legal fight over its right to reduce the health insurance benefits provided to more than 3,000 retired former Maytag plant workers.

The request was made in connection with a motion by Whirlpool to certify the defendant class in the lawsuit and to designate the UAW as the class counsel for the group. In a court filing in late February, the UAW opposed the designation as class counsel saying, among other things, that it does not have the retirees' conset to represent them.

In his comments to the paper, Shaver indicated he had received many calls from Maytag retirees concerned about the UAW's position in the case. He said he told those people they "lost the whole intent of the message" and that he knew "why they were doing it." 

Because of those comments, Whirlpool had asked the court to allow its lawyers to redepose Shaver concerning his comments to the paper, the names of the retirees who spoke to him and the content of their conversations concerning the UAW's representation, conversations Shaver had had with the law firm which represented Maytag retirees in the now-dismissed "Ginter" case and the "apparent lack of candor" by the "Ginter" plaintiffs in stating they had no intention of reopening the suit.

Magistrate Ross Walters ruled that the newspaper article did not indicate Shaver discussed the UAW's strategy with the "Ginter" class counsel so denied the latter two elements of Whirlpool's request.

However, the judge noted, the comments do tend to "contradict" the UAW's arguments in opposing designation as class counsel, but that the matter has been so extensively argued in court filings that Shaver's deposition would only "add marginally" to the record.

"That retirees have contacted Shaver concerned the union is 'casting them aside' does tend to contradict the UAW's contention that it does not have the consent of the retirees to represent them," the judge ruled. "However, that many retirees would look to the UAW to protect their interests in union-negotiated retiree health benefits is hardly suprising.

"Mr Shaver's comments to the paper do not present good cause to reopen discovery."

UAW, Local 997 resist Whirlpool's effort to redepose retiree council chair

By PETER HUSSMANN

The UAW and Local 997 are resisting Whirlpool's request to redepose the head of the Newton union's retiree council over comments he made to the local newspaper saying allowing such a move would drag on the discovery process forever.

Last week, lawyers for Whirlpool filed a motion for an expedited ruling on its request to redepose Larry Shaver, the Local 997's retiree council chair, claiming his comments to the newspaper undermine the UAW's arguments in its resistance to being named class counsel for the 3,000 Maytag retirees impacted by Whirlpool's decision to change health insurance coverage for former workers at the Newton plant.

Whirlpool claims it needs to redepose Shaver because of the March 11 Newton Daily News article that states Shaver received many calls from Maytag retirees worried that it appeared the UAW was "casting them aside" and the existence of these "many calls" shows local UAW retirees believe the UAW represents them, something the UAW argues against in a previous filing concerning class certification.

The UAW says Whirlpool was well of aware of Shaver's position with the retiree council at the time he was deposed in August 2009. At that time, the UAW argues, Whirlpool had "sufficient opportunity to depose Mr. Shaver about the relationship between the UAW and Maytag retirees."

Lawyers for the UAW and Local 997 claim nothing in the newspaper article "evidences that retirees believe the UAW represents them..."

"Moreover, even if... random retirees who spoke with Mr. Shaver may have expressed concern to him about the UAW, this fact is not relevant to the issues involved in Plaintiffs' (Whirlpool) motion for class certification," the UAW filing states. "There are approximately 3,000 retirees who are members of the putative class. The statements of some retirees who may have spoken to Mr. Shaver cannot be attributed to the class as a whole.

"Indeed, the logic of Plaintiffs' position is that after deposing Mr. Shaver, they will seek to depose the retirees who spoke with Mr. Shaver and ultimately everyone in the putative class. This is not a reasonable position: It is unduly burdensome, seeks information that has no relevance to the issues in Plaintiffs' motion to certify a defendant class, and it would needlessly delay this case.

"Furthermore, if Plaintiffs are allowed to reopen discovery on the basis of a confusing and ambiguous local newspaper article, discovery in this case can never end."

Whirlpool again asks court to support its case against Maytag retirees

By PETER HUSSMANN

Lawyers for Whirlpool have again asked a federal court to grant its motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit against Maytag retirees saying it has the right to change the health care coverage for more than 3,000 of the former Newton plant workers.

Whirlpool on Wednesday filed its reply to the UAW and Local 997's contention that the retiree health care plans were vested benefits guaranteeing life time coverage to former employees and their spouses covered by collective bargaining agreements dating back as far as 1967.

Whirlpool, in asking the court to rule in its favor without the need for a trial, disputes the facts presented by the union.

In its opposition to Whirlpool's motion, the union states that there is some question as to why the suit was brought by Whirlpool against the retirees in the first place. The union contends that it did not take an "adverse" position to company suggestions that retirees be placed under the Whirlpool retiree health care plans during contract negotiations in July 2008.

Whirlpool counters by noting a September 2008 letter to retirees that states "when the company asked the UAW to bargain reductions in retiree health care benefits in 2004, the UAW refused" and that the union would "use all our resources to compel the company to live up to its agreement to provide you with lifetime retiree health care benefits."

Whirlpool also argues that the union's own brief against the motion for summary judgment argues the company did not have the right to change retiree benefits, a point that supports its claim of an adverse stance by the union and one that can be litigated.

"There is no genuine issue of fact that the union's adverse stance over modification to the retirees' health insurance benefits together with its significant history of pursuing litigation on that issue establishes that a case or controversy exists between the company and the union," Wednesday's court filing states.

In its original motion for summary judgment, Whirlpool argued that the union has had a history of changing retiree health care plans that resulted in diminished coverage, facts that show the benefits were not vested as the union claims. The union argues the health coverage changes were only minimal and had no impact on their vested rights.

"The union concedes (as it must) that the parties had a history of negotiating reductions and limitations to retiree health insurance benefits," the motion states. "This concession is dipositive as it establishes that retirees' benefits were subject to change - and were in fact changed.

"The union attempts to ameliorate the effect of these changes (reductions) by labeling them de minimis, or by arguing that when read in conjunction with other benefit modifications, they were in reality 'major improvements' to the retirees' benefits. To the contrary, each negotiated change necessarily had a palpable effect on retirees' health insurance benefits and is concrete evidence against an intent to vest benefits."

Motions to certify the class of retirees covered under the lawsuit and a request to require the UAW to act as class counsel, as well as a motion to compel further testimony from Local 997 retiree council chair Larry Shaver, are still pending.

Whirlpool's motion filed Wednesday can be read below.

Download Whirlpool brief in support of summary judgment

Whirlpool looks to scrutinize UAW Local 997 Retiree Council chair's comments to newspaper

By PETER HUSSMANN

Lawyers for Whirlpool on Wednesday asked the federal court to allow them to take additional testimony from Larry Shaver, chair of the Local 997 Retiree Council, concerning comments he made to the Newton Daily News over the UAW's assertion in a previous court filing that the union should not be the legal representative for the 3,000 plus Maytag retirees impacted by changes to their health care insurance.

On Feb. 25, the UAW filed a response to Whirlpool's request that the UAW be named counsel for Maytag retirees involved in the federal lawsuit over health care coverage. The UAW argued it should not be required to represent the retirees for a number of reasons, including that independent counsel might find that Maytag retirees have a case against the UAW, itself.

On March 11, the filing states, the newspaper ran a story concerning the court filing that notes Shaver had "received many calls that Maytag retirees (are) concerned that the UAW is casting them aside."

Lawyers for Whirlpool argue those comments indicate Maytag "retirees believe the UAW represents them," a stance that runs against the UAW's Feb. 25 argument that the retirees have never consented to the UAW's representation of them in the court matter.

Whirlpool's lawyers are also asking for the right to explore "the apparent lack of candor" by lawyers for retirees in the Michigan case brought against Whirlpool over the changes to their health benefits that was subsequently transferred to Iowa and later voluntarily dismissed.

"Specifically, the Newton Daily News article also states that the legal maneuver by UAW to remove itself as class representative could set up a scenario in which a lawsuit similar to the one filed by individual Maytag retirees as a class representative in Michigan - which was later voluntarily dismissed after being transferred to Iowa's Southern District - is refiled," Wednesday's court filing states.

"In Ginter, et. al., v. Whirlpool, et. al., Plaintiffs (Maytag retirees) expressly stated in their reply brief in support of their voluntary motion to dismiss, that they 'have no intention to re-file this case in Michigan or anywhere else with these or any other class members...,'" the motion notes.

Whirlpool argues that its motion should be granted expeditiously because the information contained in the news article was not available when Shaver was deposed in August 2009.

Whirlpool is asking the court to "re-open discovery for the limited purpose of continuing the deposition of Larry Shaver regarding the comments in the Newton Daily News, specifically, his statements to the Newton Daily News, the names of retirees who spoke to him and the contents of their conversations with him regarding UAW's representation, Shaver's conversation with members of Cornfield & Feldman regarding the UAW's strategy and the strategy as it relates to the reason for the UAW's position and reasonably related matters."

Lawyers for the UAW have made note of their opposition to the motion and have until April 8 to file a response.

Congressman Braley looking into Maytag retiree health insurance issue

By PETER HUSSMANN

Congressman Bruce Braley responded on Tuesday to Iowa Sen. Dennis Black's request to the Iowa congressional delegation that it ask federal regulators to look into the matter of Whirlpool's change of health care insurance coverage to Maytag retirees.

Two months ago Black sent letters to the state's federal representatives, as well as to president himself, asking for intervention on behalf of Maytag retirees impacted by Whirlpool's decision to bring Maytag retirees under their retiree program, a move that sparked lawsuits over whether or not the world's largest appliance manufacturer had the right to make such change due to collective bargaining agreements in place.

In his response to the Lynnville Democrat, Braley said he has contacted the Department of Labor concerning the situation.

"Within days of receiving your letter, in early March, I forwarded it to the Department of Labor (DOL) to inquire as to their authority under current law to require Whirlpool to carry out their commitment to former Maytag employees," the state's 1st District congressman's letter states.

Braley went on to note that he would need access to the collective bargaining agreements in place and the asset purchase information stemming from Whirlpool's buyout of Maytag in order to analyze "a party's obligation to perform." He said he has directed his staff members to track that information down.

The Waterloo Democrat said he is "concerned" about the impact of Whirlpool's action on Maytag retirees.

"Like you, I'm deeply concerned about the actions of Whirlpool and its effect on Maytag retirees," Braley wrote. "These workers dedicated their lives to this company and they don't deserve to be treated the way they are being treated. Please be assured that I'll continue to monitor this situation and I'll keep you updated on what I hear from the Department of Labor."

Whirlpool and Maytag's 3,000 plus Newton retirees are currently in a legal battle over the situation. A court ruling has yet to be issued concerning Whirlpool's motion for summary judgment on the matter, a move the UAW and Local 997 argue should not be granted.

UAW asks court to deny Whirlpool's summary judgment motion in Maytag retiree health benefits case

By PETER HUSSMANN

Lawyers for the UAW and its Newton-based Local 997 argue in court papers filed late Friday that contrary to Whirlpool's assertion, it did not have the right to change Maytag retiree health care benefits due to language in collective bargaining agreements dating back as far as 1967.

The UAW's assertion is made in its response to Whirlpool's motion for summary judgment in the federal insurance claim case the company filed in Iowa in July 2008. Whirlpool is asking the court to agree with its assertion of the facts at issue and grant judgment in its favor without the need for the issue to go trial.

In its filing Friday arguing against the motion for summary judgment, the UAW disputes the facts presented by Whirlpool and argues it can show that "each collectively-bargained insurance agreement from 1967 to 2004 contains core language that unambiguously confers health care benefits on every retiree for himself and eligible dependents during his life."

The 62-page court filing, plus another 50-plus pages devoted to dispelling Whirlpool's assertion of the facts and additional assertions of facts by the UAW, goes on to argue that retiree benefits were vested and disputes Whirlpool's claims that the union had repeatedly negotiated adverse changes to retirees' medical benefits.

"[T]here is absolutely no evidence that there was any impairment of benefits to current retirees over the years," the court filing states. "To the contrary, any adjustments that occurred were actually improvements or constituted (minimal) changes."

The UAW also argues that there is some question as to the grounds for Whirlpool's suit in the first place. Whirlpool says it brought suit after the union's adverse position on the company's ability to modify Maytag retirees' medical benefits during negotiations in 2008. However, the UAW notes that discovery depositions show "that the union never took an adverse position."

"The bottom line is that the case or controversy issues rests on disputed facts; therefore summary judgment must be denied," court documents state.

Download UAW answer to motion for summary judgment

UAW granted extension to reply to Whirlpool's motion for summary judgment on changes to Maytag retiree health care plans

By PETER HUSSMANN

Lawyers for the UAW and Local 997 have been granted a two day extension to file its response to Whirlpool Corporation's request that the federal court grant its motion for summary judgment.

On Tuesday, counsel for the UAW and Newton union filed a motion seeking the two day extension from today's previously set deadline "in order to properly prepare and file their response" to Whirlpool's motion seeking court approval of its claim that it had the right to change the health care retirement plans for approximately 3,300 Maytag retirees without the need for the issue to be decided at trial.

Attorneys for Whirlpool agreed to allow the UAW to seek the extension. Whirlpool will now be given until April 2 to file its response to the UAW opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

Attorney Robert Seltzer, attorney for the UAW, also noted that he "has been impeded by a medical problem during the past several days."

In its motion for summary judgment, Whirlpool contends the retiree health care benefit plan previously in place expired on July 31, 2008 upon the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement between Maytag and members of the UAW Local 997. Further, it says it never agreed not to change retiree health plans at some future time.

"The contractual language at issue in this case, including the benefit plans, supplemental agreements, summary plan descriptions, hourly retirement benefit summaries and benefit certificates are all unambiguous and establish that (Whirlpool/Maytag) never agreed to provide retirees with vested, unalterable health insurance benefits," the motion states.

This is the second extension granted in regard to the filing. A previous story by the Newton Independent on the matter can be found here.

Whirlpool keeps Maytag retirees up-to-date on pending health benefit plan changes

Newton Independent

Whirlpool continues to keep Maytag retirees abreast of changes it plans to enact to their health care coverage beginning in 2011.

Starting Jan. 1, there will be two medical plan options offered for pre-Medicare retirees and dependents that will replace the current 80/20 and 70/30 retiree plans.

The "Rewards Plan" is a preferred provider plan similar to the current 80/20 benefit. It has in- and out-of-network benefits and the networks will not change, allowing retirees to continue to see the same providers.

However, the new plan has two different levels of benefits with Level 2 providing better benefits, such as a $500 deductible and $2,000 out-of-pocket limit. But to be eligible for Level 2 benefits, retirees must complete four "healthy behavior activities," such as wellness exams and routine vision screenings. Level 1 plans have higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses.

The second option for Maytag retirees will be the "Savings Plan," a medical benefit plan with a health savings account, a tax sheltered savings account for healthcare expenses. Though the plan has higher deductibles, retirees are eligible to deposit tax free money into the account to help offset that expense.

Whirlpool first notified Maytag retirees of the pending health care benefit changes in a letter in January.

UAW says it should not represent Maytag retirees in health benefits class action lawsuit

By PETER HUSSMANN

Attorneys for the UAW and Local 997 say they are not the appropriate counsel to represent the interests of the more than 3,000 Newton Maytag retirees involved in a class action lawsuit over changes to their health care benefits.

In a filing in federal district court late last month, attorneys for the UAW are asking the court to deny a motion brought by Maytag and Whirlpool "to certify the defendant class,to designate the UAW as the class representative and to appoint the UAW's attorneys as class counsel."

In arguing its position as not the proper counsel for the retirees, attorneys for the UAW say that since Maytag and Whirlpool define the individuals covered by the action as Newton employees "who retired from Maytag and/or Whirlpool before July 31, 2008," the UAW is not even a member of the covered class.

"The UAW, as an institution, is obviously not a member of the class," the filing states. "Moreover, the class does not include current Newton bargaining unit employees represented by the UAW or such employees who retire under the current collective bargaining agreement.

"Therefore, unlike the putative class members who have been harmed by the benefit changes that are the subject of this lawsuit, the UAW has suffered no material harm by (Maytag and Whirlpool's) action, and the outcome of this lawsuit will not materially impact the UAW or the active employees it represents."

Lawyers for the UAW go on to argue that since "the retirees are not full members of the UAW," the union should not be required to represent them as class counsel.

"While retirees may remain involved in UAW activities and may be able to influence the UAW, they lack the power, due to constitutional limitations and federal labor law, to control the union," the filing states. "It is well established that 'the union owes no duty of fair representation to retirees since the union's duty runs only to employees within the bargaining unit for whom the union acts as exclusive bargaining representative.'"

Further, the UAW argues, conflicts exist between what may be the best interests of retirees compared to active members of the union, a situation that still exists, the UAW argues, even if the particular employer no longer has any active employees.

"A retiree lawsuit to protect medical benefits arises from collective bargaining and is analogous to a grievance in the contract administration process. ... [I]t follows that a union that is obligated by law and compelled by internal union politics to place the interests of its active employees over that of retirees is not a proper party to represent retirees in such actions..."

The UAW goes on to note that case law holds that a union may only represent a class of retirees with their consent.

"There is no evidence that the members of the putative class have consented to the UAW's representation of them in this action," the filing states. "Moreover, over 800 members of the class signed declarations stating they do not consent to the UAW's representation of them..."

Finally, the UAW lawyers argue retirees may have an action against the union itself, a situation that makes its representation of retirees inappropriate.

In its motion for summary judgment, which the UAW has until March 17 to reply, Whirlpool and Maytag argue it has the right to change health care benefits to Newton retirees because the union had previously agreed to allow increased drug plan co-payments to retiree health care plans.

"In short, it is undeniable that the introduction of the Maytag Model Drug Plan in 2004, with its increased co-payments and mail order drug requirements, constituted an adverse modification to the retirees' health insurance benefits," Whirlpool and Maytag argue in its motion for summary judgment. "The existence of such an adverse modification, and the union's lack of objection, thereto, contradicts the concept of vested, unalterable benefits."

That issue, the UAW argues, makes it an inappropriate class representative for retirees and may open the union to litigation by the retirees.

"Class representatives and counsel who were independent of the UAW could conceivably contend in this case that the drug benefits were indeed vested, but that the UAW improperly bargained them away in 2004 without the retirees' consent," the UAW lawyers state. "This is an argument that the UAW is not in a position to pursue on a critical issue and demonstrates that the UAW would be an improper class representative."

Whirlpool, State of Iowa, continue to get heat about Amana grant

Newton Independent

Whirlpool continues to get heat for taking - and the State of Iowa for giving - a $6.5 million state grant to expand its Amana refrigerator plant, money the world's largest appliance manufacturer admits it really didn't need.

Tracy Kurowski, AFL-CIO Community Service Liaison at United Way of the Quad Cities, writes today on Blog for Iowa that Whirlpool would have gone ahead with improvements to the Amana plant even if it had not received the state grant money.

And, she notes, Iowa County threw in another $1.5 million bringing to $133,000 the cost of each of the 60 laid off workers Amana will recall to the facility. 

On Friday, thousands of people rallied in Evansville, Ind., against Whirlpool's decision to close the refrigeration production facility in that community and move the jobs to a new plant in Mexico.