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.

Gretsinger v. Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems

January 3, 2007

DENNIS GRETSINGER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND POWER SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Pending before the Court is Defendant Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems' motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. # 9). The Court finds the matter suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

Between November 17, 1997, and January 15, 2002, Defendant Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems (Defendant) employed Plaintiff Dennis Gretsinger (Plaintiff) as a tooling specialist. Complaint, at 2, ll. 2-4. In January of 2002, Defendant laid off six or seven employees, including Plaintiff. Compl., at 2, ll. 2-7. In a letter to Plaintiff dated January 17, 2002, Defendant notified Plaintiff that he was being laid off due to a reduction in force caused by a lack of available work in Plaintiff's classification. Compl., at 2, ll. 5-7. In a second letter to Plaintiff dated March 14, 2002, Defendant indicated that Plaintiff, as well as other union and nonunion employees, were laid off, based on reduced workloads following the disaster of 9/11 causing the overall need to reduce staffing and to meet the lower sales level for Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems.

Compl., at 2, ll. 9-12.

By September of 2002, every union employee that had been laid off in January of 2002, had either been recalled or had received offers to be recalled, except for Plaintiff. Compl., at 2, ll. 14-19. Though Defendant employs approximately 195 union employees, Plaintiff is the only union employee laid off in January of 2002 who has not been recalled. Compl., at 2, ll. 16-19. Plaintiff is currently registered for recall rights. Compl., at 2, l. 25. Since January of 2002, Defendant has hired over 35 new union employees to positions other than tooling specialist. Compl., at 3, ll. 13-14.

During the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant, Plaintiff was a member of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 1125 (the Union), a labor union. Compl., at 2, ll. 14-19. During the time Plaintiff worked for Defendant, Plaintiff worked pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) signed by the Union and Defendant. Compl., at 2, ll. 14-25. Pursuant to Article 3.06(2) of the CBA,

The Company will continue the practice of recalling displaced/laid off employees to either their current or previously held classification(s) when an opening occurs, or a classification to be trained before a new employee is hired.

Compl., at 3, ll. 15-18.

Seeking to be reinstated as an employee of Defendant, and believing himself entitled to reinstatement based on Article 3.06(2) of the CBA, Plaintiff filed grievances with the Union on February 27, 2004, and April 13, 2005. Compl., at 3, l. 21. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and Union negotiated the grievances in violation of the CBA, and did so in a secretive manner which did not afford Plaintiff an opportunity to appear on his own behalf. Compl., at 3, ll. 20-25. Union Area 1 Director Virginia Cobb (Cobb) responded to Plaintiff's grievances by letter on two separate occasions, the first letter dated March 4, 2004, and the second letter dated June 24, 2005. Compl., at 4, ll. 1-5. Though neither letter mentioned Article 3.06(2) of the CBA specifically, in each letter Cobb stated that Defendant was not contractually obligated to recall Plaintiff to classifications other than tooling specialist. Compl., at 4, ll. 1-5.

In the spring of 2005, the Union combined Plaintiff's CBA Article 3.06(2) grievances with an additional grievance, regarding back-pay owed, which had also been filed by Plaintiff in April of 2004. Compl., at 4, ll. 7-20. The Union labeled the combined grievances "Inquiry 05-01." Compl., at 4, ll. 14-17. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant and the Union secretly negotiated a resolution to Inquiry 05-01. Compl., at 4, l. 15. Plaintiff further alleges that after Defendant and the Union agreed to a resolution, Defendant sent Plaintiff a check for $563.73 in an attempt to settle the dispute. Compl., at 4, ll. 15-16. In a letter dated June 30, 2005, Defendant's Human Resources Manager notified Plaintiff that Inquiry 05-01 would be closed after Plaintiff cashed the $563.73 check. Compl., at 4, ll. 17-20. To date, Plaintiff has not cashed the check. Compl., at 4, ll. 22-25.

On December 8, 2005, and still seeking to resolve his CBA Article 3.06(2) grievance, Plaintiff went to the Union's hall in San Diego and attempted to submit a third grievance. Compl., at 5, ll. 5-9. As a basis for this third grievance, Plaintiff sought an explanation as to why he was not entitled to the protections of Article 3.06(2) of the CBA, something Plaintiff alleges that he had not been provided as of December of 2005. Compl., at 5, ll. 11-14. The Union clerk who spoke with Plaintiff at the Union hall refused to process the grievance on December 8, 2005. Compl., at 5, ll. 18-19.

Minutes after the Union clerk refused to process the grievance, Plaintiff spoke with Cobb at the Union hall. Compl., at 5, ll. 21-24. Cobb told Plaintiff, "we even had one of our lawyers look into it . . . there's nothing we can do Dennis." Compl., at 5, ll. 23-24. Thereafter, Plaintiff asked Cobb for a "logical explanation" as to why he was not entitled to employment with Defendant vis-a-vis Article 3.06(2) of the CBA. Compl., at 6, ll. 3-5. Cobb agreed to provide that explanation in writing. Compl., at 6, l. 5. Plaintiff never received a written explanation from Cobb. Compl., at 6, ll. 14-20.

After not receiving a written response from Cobb, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Cobb and Gary Holt (Cobb's supervisor), requesting the name of the lawyer who had "looked into" Plaintiff's case, and also seeking further explanation regarding Article 3.06(2) of the CBA. Compl., at 7-8. To date, Plaintiff ...


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.