Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Communications Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. Verizon Services Corp.

August 5, 2011

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, DISTRICT 13,: PLAINTIFF,
v.
VERIZON SERVICES CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Curtis Joyner, C.J.

ORDER AND NOW, this 5 th day of August, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14), Defendants' Response in Opposition Thereto (Doc. No. 19), Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16), and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition Thereto (Doc. No. 18), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff in no amount.

BY THE COURT:

J. Curtis Joyner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OFAMERICA, AFL-CIO, DISTRICT 13,: Plaintiff, v. VERIZON SERVICES CORP., et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-6840

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Joyner, C.J.

August , 2011

Plaintiff, Communications Workers of America (CWA), AFL-CIO, District 13, and Defendants, Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc., Verizon Delaware, Inc., and Verizon Services Corp. *fn1 , each file a motion for summary judgment in their respective favor. The case was initiated by Plaintiff bringing a breach of contract claim on behalf of CWA Local 13500 and CWA Local 13100. (Pl.'s Mem., 3, Doc. No. 15). Plaintiff represented the aforementioned local unions in a series of collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with Defendant, of which the agreement at issue was effective August 3, 2008 through August 6, 2011. (Pl.'s Mem., 3-4, Doc. No. 15). The primary issue is whether Defendant violated a contracted agreement with Plaintiff when the decision was made to provide more employees with Enhanced Income Security Plan (EISP) benefits than were covered in the declared "surplus."

I. Facts

On June 30, 2000, Bell Atlantic merged with GTE and became known as Verizon. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ¶ 13). CWA and its affiliated Locals in District 13 have represented employees of Bell Atlantic, and later Verizon in Delaware and Pennsylvania since the 1990s. (Id., ¶ 14). The Income Security Plan, and Enhanced Income Security Plan provisions in the CBAs covering Locals 13000, 13500, 13100, 13101 (collectively "the Pennsylvania and Delaware CBAs") set forth a process by which the employers may reduce the size of their respective workforces. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, ¶ 12). Since 1996, and currently, the amended CBA regarding EISPs between Pennsylvania Local 13500 and Verizon states in relevant part: 21.01 If during the term of this Agreement, the Company notifies the Union in writing that technological change (defined as changes in equipment or methods of operation) has or will create a surplus in any job title in a work location which will necessitate lay-offs or involuntary permanent reassignments of regular employees to different job titles involving a reduction in pay or to work locations requiring a change of residence, or if a force surplus necessitating any of the above actions exists for reasons other than technological change and the Company deems it appropriate, regular employees who have at least one (1) year of net ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.