Shop Steward problems

As per our union contract, the company picks up a the majority of the cost of dependent coverage. There is also a clause in the contract about the ee being responsible for advising HR when they get divorced or legally separated. The company rules include a rule about theft. Found out today that the shop steward has been divorced for 17 months. He told his supervisor he didn't know about the clause in the contract. (aside -- sarcastic "right"). He is, also, on the board of the union. If it was any other ee, he would be terminated. I'm inclined to do that, but I'm nervous. I need suggestions on what to do.

Comments

  • 18 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • I would treat him no different than I would any other employee. If you have termed for this before do it to him also. If you decide not to terminate, I would make make him payback the premium that was paid under this failure to terminate coverage. There may have also been claims paid, I would have him repay all. If you don't past precedent will haunt you in the future. Might even be considered a criminal fraud.
    My $0.02 worth.
    DJ The Balloonman
  • Where did the money for dependent coverage go? Did it go into his pocket, or to your insurance carrier? If it went to the carrier, I do not see how your charge of "theft" could uphold his termination.
  • I have been in the situation before with an employee failing to tell me about their divoce. What should happen is that you terminate the employee's spouse back to the last date they were an eligible dependent. The insurance company will then go back and require refunds for all the paid claims for that spouse. The clinics, etc. will then either go after the employee and/or the spouse for payment of those claims. Although the insurance company may only go back a year (in my situation I was informed about 9 mos. after the fact), I'm sure there are quite a few claims that have been paid that someone else is going to be held responsible for.

    As far as terminating, if this is the only offense I would not do it.
  • I don't recommend terminating any employee, much less a shop steward, for this. It's too easy for an employee, and the NLRB Attorney in this case, to develop a case putting forth the contention that this was not deliberate and certainly not a terminating offense. The NLRB will without a doubt issue an opinion that you did this because of his position with the union and they will hold that the penalty was way to harsh. The back wages will be a wash with what you would have paid him since his termination; however, it's the attorney fees that will eat your lunch.

    I agree with the earlier post that said let the insurance company handle it. They will do their thing and you won't have a real role in it. I also agree that it is not theft. These sorts of things are way more common than some realize, with kids on the policy who should have rolled off, with kids on the policy who really do not meet the definitions of dependent and with spouses who no longer hold that status. I once discovered an employee who still showed her spouse on our coverage and he had been dead for seven years. I was pleased that he had filed no claims.

    Pick your battles wisely. Avoid this one with the union. It's not one you'll enjoy.
  • Thanks for the good advice. I'm glad my nerves were right. I am contacting the insurance company.
  • I agree with Don.....no discipline. Just recoup the company's portion of the health care insurance they have put out when they shouldn't have been putting anything out. That will be pain enough.
  • I agree - let the insurance company go after him. Just make sure that you send out a COBRA notice!!

    LFernandes
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-06-03 AT 03:02PM (CST)[/font][p]Aha, which is interesting in itself. At what point in time was the person eligible for COBRA if a decision is now made to rule she was ineligible for the past year and no claims will be recognized that roll in from that period? Does the continuation option get continued? Are we saying the employee perhaps literally became eligible for COBRA AFTER the COBRA eligibility has expired?

    Or, more to the point, do we rule her eligible at some point in the past and require the payment of back-cobra-premiums. I suspect the latter.
  • If I remember correctly when this happened to me, I made the COBRA date retroactive and sent her the corresponding paperwork. Needless to say she was NOT happy when she received them and informed me that her exhusband was responsible for maintaining her health insurance coverage. I calmly explained the situation to her and informed her that without payment of the premiums, we could not maintain her on COBRA. He refused to pay stating that she didn't keep up her end of the financial agreement. I didn't enroll her and informed her that this was something she and the exhusband needed to work out. She never elected the COBRA and I don't know who became responsible for the medical bills.
  • According to the initial letter sent out when someone first gets insurance, the spouse (or is it the ex-spouse) also has an obligation to notify HR or the insurance company of the change in status. Which means, in this case, that she may share the same culpability as her ex-husband on the overpayment of premiums. Of course, I doubt if many people read that letter, union contracts, insurance policies, etc., etc. Which is probably why (to toot my own horn), I am perceived to know so much more about the union contract, insurance policies, companies rules etc. than anyone else at the company. If I'm this cynical today, I can't wait until next Friday which is the 13th.
  • Since the election period for COBRA would have long-ago passed, it is possible that the insurance carrier would deny COBRA enrollment (especially if there has been a lot of insurance claims during that time period). I've seen this happen when it was the employer at fault - leaving the employer to pay the cost of the medical claims (or face litigation from the employee). Hopefully, you have a carrier that is understanding when these things happen ...
  • This may or may not help...[Taken from the DOLS Model Notice of EE's rights]

    "When the Plan Administrator is notified that one of these events has happened [Qualifying Event], the Plan Administrator will, in turn, notify you that you have the right to continuation coverage. Under the law, you have at least 60 days from the date you would lose coverage because of one of the events described above, or the date of notice of your election notice is sent to you, whichever is later, for you to inform the Plan Administrator that you want continuation coverage. If you do not chose continuation coverage, your group health insurance coverage will end."

    I would send out the COBRA notice, certified return receipt and let her decide if she want to continue her coverage. She would have to back pay all the past due premiums. But I would definately talk to your healthcare Account Manager first to see how they handle something like this. I know that my healthcare provider only allows me to term coverage 60 days back.

    Good luck.

    LFernandes
  • All of the individuals who have responded have made good points. Let me add a different approach. I would bring this matter to the union's attention. I would tell them how upset we were. The shop steward is trained to know the contract. The shop steward is on the union's board and thus is not a mere rank and file employee who may not know what the contract requires. The facts, as the company sees them, is that the shop steward intentionally did not tell the company because the employee probably would have to pay for the coverage out of his pocket. I would specifically ask if the shop steward is required by the divorce decree to maintain medical coverage. The answer is probably yes. If the answer is yes, then it appears that the shop steward is intentionally taking money from the company that he is not entitled to and as such, his action constitutes stealing. I would specifically inform the union that the steward's conduct is unacceptable. I would demand restitution of the premium costs at a minimum. If you have fired other employees for the same thing, then I would tell the union that you are contemplating discharge. If you have not done so, I would tell the union that you still are contemplating discharge. In either event, I would attempt to bargain the discipline down to either a suspension or written warning.

    The point I would be trying to make to the union that it is not acceptable for union officials to violate the contract.

    The NLRB could be a concern, but only if you have to disciplined other employees for this type of offense. If you have not, then there is a concern, but being an union official does not insulate an employee from legitimate discipline. However, I would not overtly state to the union that you are making an example out of the steward. I would tell them that the conduct is unacceptable and because he is a steward and a member of the union's board, it is unbelievable that he did not know what the contract requires.



    Vance Miller
    Editor, Missouri Employment Law Letter
    Armstrong Teasdale LLP
    (314) 621-5070
    [email]vmiller@armstrongteasdale.com[/email]

  • >The NLRB could be a concern, but only if you have to disciplined other
    >employees for this type of offense. If you have not, then there is a
    >concern, but being an union official does not insulate an employee
    >from legitimate discipline. However, I would not overtly state to the
    >union that you are making an example out of the steward. I would tell
    >them that the conduct is unacceptable and because he is a steward and
    >a member of the union's board, it is unbelievable that he did not know
    >what the contract requires.

    Based on personal experience, I disagree with several points made in your last paragraph, which I have inserted above. First, in real-world application, it is not true that 'being a union official does not insulate an employee from legitimate discipline'. I suffered through nine 10 hour days of NLRB trial in 2002, and lost. We had terminated a steward for leaving the job as well as leaving the production plant entirely. Our evidence revealed that we had consistently done that over time for 17 years. The opinion stated that the steward was due special consideration from the rules in that she conveniently claimed that she had walked off the job and out of the plant to represent somebody. (wonder where she got that notion. I'll tell you where...from the NLRB agent/attorney). Secondly, I'm not saying he did not cheat, lie and steal; but, a company's insurance policy and COBRA regulations are not among the body of intimate knowledge that a shop steward would typically have. Often they know little more than where the grievance forms are kept. Third, I have never seen a contract that even mentions COBRA beyond perhaps inclusion by parenthetical reference among the policy jargon. Fourth, I can tell you that being elected or appointed to a steward's position requires absolutely nothing beyond a casual ability to take random breaths of air to sustain life. They have no expectation to operate within any particular framework of knowledge and certainly not common sense. Last, how would one pretend to not be making a special circumstance out of this with the steward and not treating the steward as an example yet at the same time reduce this to writing in a special written appeal to the union?


  • Don - having experience with unions, I have to agree with you on all points. It would be nice if the union officials were required to have some type of special skills but unfortunately, that is not a requirement.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-09-03 AT 02:41PM (CST)[/font][p]Here's the real problem. If this had happened because of any other ee, I would not have posted. However, this involves a shop steward. There is what should be done and there is reality. He should be treated the same as any other employee, however, the reality is the NLRB and how things are perceived. It is one of things that is frustrating about the job. Unfortunately, this is similar to trial (it is not about truth, it is about how the truth is perceived by the jury). No matter what is done, we have taken into account that he is the shop steward and simply by doing that, we are treating him differently.
  • You are exactly right! It can indeed be frustrating, but only if you let it be. Once we know the reality, it's tougher for it to frustrate us. The NLRB is a stacked deck from the get-go. The NLRB judges all used to be, what else, NLRB Agents who are also NLRB attorneys, all of whom aspire to be NLRB judges and remain in the federal system. There is nothing balanced about NLRB trials, and since there are no juries involved, it's even more stacked, with a former agent listening to a present agent, each of whom is paid out of the same government trough. No one pretends to imagine that employers get a fair shake at these hearings. I was told right along all through the process by a New Orleans agent who was handling this case that it looked as if the company had done precisely what it should have done and that there appeared to be consistency in our application of policy and that they were not interested in a historical perspective of our policy application anyway. Bam, he went away and another agent in another jurisdiction in St. Louis flew into the scene and nothing the NLRB had told me to that point was truthful, not a damned bit of it. Speaking of venting. Maybe I will run into him one day when I put on my weekend personality.
  • That is why I suggested terming if you would have if it were not the steward. You know that quickly the union will file a grievance on his behalf. By firing him you can fall back to a suspension without pay as the discipline. I have been fortunate not to have to deal with the NLRB, but I also disciplined a shop steward in the past. And yes I did enjoy it.
    My $0.02 worth.
    DJ The Balloonman
Sign In or Register to comment.