This post originally appeared in the AFL-CIO blog on October 5, 2009. Reprinted with permission from the author.

New contracts for 16,000 AT&T core wireline workers, members of CWA and IBEW, and more news from the “Bargaining Digest Weekly.” The AFL-CIO Collective Bargaining Department delivers daily, bargaining-related news and research resources to more than 1,200 subscribers. Union leaders can register for this service through our website, Bargaining@Work.

SETTLEMENTS

CWA, AT&T: Members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) ratified a new three-year contract with AT&T. The pact, covering 7,000 core wireline workers around the country, includes a 9 percent pay increase over the term and maintains quality health care.

IBEW, AT&T: Nearly 9,000 core wireline workers in Illinois and Indiana, members of the Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 21, ratified a new three-year agreement with AT&T on Tuesday. Nearly half of AT&T’s 120,000 wireline workers have ratified contracts, while negotiations continue with CWA in the East, Southeast and Southwest regions.

USW, Bridgestone-Firestone: Completing the latest round of rubber tire industry bargaining, United Steelworkers (USW) members at Bridgestone-Firestone ratified a four-year agreement covering 4,500 workers at seven plants. Wages and benefits are protected, including health care for both active and retired workers. Members also ratified new agreements with Goodyear and Michelin.

UNITE HERE, Multiple Casinos: Members of UNITE HERE Local 54 overwhelmingly approved a new two-year contract with four Atlantic City casinos. The agreement with Harrah’s Atlantic City, Bally’s Atlantic City, Caesars Atlantic City and the Showboat Atlantic City provides wage increases for most workers and guarantees benefits will not be cut.

AFSCME, City of New Britain: AFSCME Local 1186 ratified a new contract with the city of New Britain, Conn., last week. The new contract comes just months after a four-year contract was reached, but since then, the city’s budget has suffered with the economic downturn. The new contract includes a six-month wage freeze in exchange for a no-layoff guarantee.

AFM, Grand Rapids Symphony: Members of the Grand Rapids Federation of Musicians (AFM) ratified a new two-year contract with the Grand Rapids Symphony. The 80 musicians will maintain there current pay but agreed to small cuts in benefits to avoid layoffs.

Multiple, Kennecott Utah Copper: Members of four unions have ratified a seven-year contract with Kennecott Utah Copper. The contract, covering 1,280 members of IBEW, Machinists (IAM), Operating Engineers (IUOE) and USW, includes a wage increase of approximately 5 percent each year.

Multiple, State of Rhode Island: Three of four state employee unions in Rhode Island have voted to approve the contract proposed by Gov. Donald Carcieri. SEIU Local 580, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 400 and a health care worker’s arm of the National Education Association (NEA-Ind.) voted for the agreement, which includes 12 furlough days over two years but avoids layoffs. The state’s largest public sector union, AFSCME Council 94, will tally its votes tomorrow.

NEGOTIATIONS

IFPTE, Spirit AeroSystems: The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001, has reached a tentative agreement with Spirit AeroSystems. The contract would cover 783 engineers and includes a 3 percent bonus, annual wage increases and guaranteed compensation for overtime. Union negotiators unanimously recommended members vote in favor of the agreement.

AFSCME, State of Illinois: An Illinois judge issued an injunction last Monday to halt the layoff of 2,600 Illinois state workers, saying it violated the workers’ union contract. AFSCME Council 31 filed the lawsuit to prevent the layoffs of its members, many of whom are corrections officers, arguing that prison layoffs would risk the safety of the remaining corrections workers. The state and union will head to arbitration.

IAM, Daimler Trucks: The IAM is hopeful for a new contract at a Daimler Trucks plant in Oregon, which the company had previously announced would be shut down. The company put on hold plans to transfer work from Portland to Mexico and North Carolina, saying it received a new military contract, but the union says the plans changed because of the large amount the company would have to pay out for pensions if it shut down.

BCTGM, Kellogg Inc.: The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers has reached a tentative three-year agreement with cereal maker Kellogg Inc. The contract would cover 1,450 workers at four plants, represented by Local 3-G in Battle Creek, Mich., Local 50-G in Omaha, Neb., Local 252-G in Memphis, Tenn., and Local 374-G in Lancaster, Penn.

UAW, Deere and Company: UAW has reached a tentative agreement with agricultural equipment maker Deere and Co., covering 9,500 workers and 17,000 retirees. The proposed six-year contract will be voted on by 15 UAW locals.

Multiple, City of L.A.: The Los Angeles City Council approved a plan to offer early retirement to 2,400 city workers. The plan would offer cash bonuses to workers who retired early, in an attempt to save money and avoid possible layoffs. The Coalition of City Unions must vote to ratify the plan before it returns to the city council for final approval.

CNA/NNOC, Temple University Hospital: Nurses at Temple University Hospital postponed a three-day strike, which was to start Friday. The members of the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals (PASNAP-CNA/NNOC) overwhelmingly rejected a proposal by Temple University Hospital.

Multiple, Republic Airways Holdings Inc.: Flight attendants and pilots for Midwest Airlines, represented by the Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA) and the Air Line Pilots (ALPA) respectively, continue to negotiate over seniority lists with the Teamsters (IBT), which represents crews of Midwest’s new owner, Republic Airways Holdings Inc. Midwest’s legacy crews face layoff by Dec. 1, when the Boeing 717 jets they fly will be grounded.

Disclaimer: This information is being provided for your information only. As it is compiled from published news reports, not from individual unions, we cannot vouch for either its completeness or accuracy; readers who desire further information should directly contact the union involved.

About the Author: Belinda Boyce. Before joining the AFL-CIO Collective Bargaining Department as research analyst, I worked for six years in the AFL-CIO Organizing Department: three years in Voice@Work and three years in the Center for Strategic Research, working on organizing, issue, and political campaigns. I attended Penn State University, where I became a rabid fan of Nittany Lion football, and later graduated from Florida State University College of Law.

In AT&T v. Hulteen Justice Souter authored the 7-2 majority opinion holding that AT&T’s “reliance” interest in perpetuating past pregnancy discrimination trumps the right of  Noreen Hulteen and her fellow plaintiffs to enjoy the same level of retirement benefits as other employees with the same longevity of service to the company.  This is a deeply unfair decision, contrary to the intent of Congress, and utterly unnecessary.

At oral argument Justice Souter acknowledged that the case could go either way, because there were competing lines of legal authority from which the case could be viewed.  The Court’s choice to immunize AT&T’s conduct from liability by resurrecting General Electric v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976), a decision overturned by Congress’ enactment of  the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, provides a vivid illustration of conservative judicial activism under the guise of  “strict” application of the rule of law.

There was nothing inevitable about this decision. Gilbert holds that denying medical benefits to pregnant women is not “necessarily” sex discrimination, not that disparate treatment of pregnant women could never be.  In fact, one year later Justice Rehnquist, who authored Gilbert, wrote the majority opinion in Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136 (1977) holding that burdening pregnant women by forcing them to forfeit earned seniority is sex discrimination.

In this case, AT&T’s pregnant employees were deprived of all but 30 days of seniority credit for the time they were out on pregnancy leave, while employees on leave for other disabilities forfeited none. The Court chose to characterize this disparate treatment of pregnant employees as not providing a “benefit,” permissible under Gilbert.  But it could just as easily have decided that it created a “burden” constituting illegal sex discrimination under Satty.

Another choice the Court made was to treat the case as a challenge to AT&T’s seniority system as a whole, rather than to a specific, post-PDA retirement benefit calculation. There is a vast difference, recognized by the courts, between “competitive” seniority and “benefit” seniority.  The Hulteen plaintiffs did not seek to obtain a competitive advantage over male co-workers, or any other retroactive benefit.  They merely sought equal treatment in the calculation of future compensation — retirement benefits“ to which they are clearly entitled by the explicit language of the PDA: “[W]omen affected by pregnancy….shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work…”

In holding as it did, the majority chose to “empathize” with AT&T rather than the retiring women who had already endured a lifetime of disadvantage on the job as a result of their pre-PDA pregnancy leaves.  The majority weighed speculative harm to AT&T’s “reliance” interest more heavily than Congress’ explicit, strongly worded intent to protect women from economic injury and injustice on the basis of pregnancy.

But to what end?   To establish the principle that companies may perpetuate discrimination even after Congress acts?    What the Court chooses to call a “retroactive” application of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act could just as easily be described as enforcement of the statute.

No wonder Justice Ginsburg was figuratively tearing out her hair!  There could not be a better illustration of what is at stake in the appointment of Justice Souter’s replacement nor of the need for another woman with Justice Ginsburg’s understanding of employment discrimination on the Supreme Court.  Let’s hope that Congress acts swiftly to overturn this exceedingly bad decision, in language that will finally lay to rest the ghost of Gilbert past.

About the Author: Charlotte Fishman Charlotte Fishman is a San Francisco employment discrimination attorney, and Executive Director of Pick UP the Pace.  She authored the an amicus brief for the National Employment Lawyers Association et al. in support of respondents in AT&T v. Hulteen.