Status of Litigation and Arbitration Cases

October 12, 2006

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

1.         Buhler/Post Consolidation Information Request

             We filed an unfair labor practice charge against ExxonMobil alleging that the company engaged in violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA.  This case involved the company’s refusal to provide information to the union in two pending grievances.  First, the company has refused to provide any documentation requested by Lou Deculus and then Cheryl Arnold related to the post consolidation grievance matter.  The General Counsel denied our appeal finding that there was no consolidation within the 60 days prior to our request.  Therefore, the request was not relevant to the grievance processing functions of the union.  We have no further appeal rights.

             Additionally, the company has failed to produce certain documents requested in the Jonette Buhler termination case.  This case is preparing to move forward to arbitration, and the documents are necessary in order to participate in that process. The Board planned to issue complaint in this charge.  To avoid complaint, the company settled this dispute and provided the records.  The company also posted a notice of its violation in the chemical plant for 60 days.

 2.         Viola Combs

            We filed an unfair labor practice charge against ExxonMobil alleging that it violated Sections 8(a)(1),(3), and (4) of the Act by its conduct related to Viola Combs.  Specifically, we challenge the company’s extended search of Combs, her vehicle, her locker, and her handbag. Our position is that the company’s actions are retaliatory because of Combs’ past use, with great success, of the grievance and arbitration process and the prior filing of an unfair labor practice charge related to her termination.  The Board is proceeding to investigate the charge.

ARBITRATIONS

1.         Viola Combs

            The Executive Committee voted to arbitrate the discharge of Combs.  ExxonMobil reinstated Combs to her position with the company.  However, the back pay issues remained in dispute.  While ExxonMobil paid Combs her base pay, they were unwilling to pay the back overtime Combs was entitled to receive.

On February 6, 2006, we received Arbitrator Cipolla’s decision awarding Combs overtime.  The arbitrator ordered that Combs receive the number of overtime hours she earned in the fifty-two weeks preceding her June 24, 2002 discharge.

.  The parties finally settled this dispute with an agreement that ExxonMobil would pay Combs $27,000.00 in overtime and would do a thrift matching for Combs’ contribution to her account.

2.         Halobutyl Overtime

            The union has voted to arbitrate this case.  We submitted an issue to the company.  They rejected our issue but agreed that this dispute is arbitrable.  Bob Landry is working with us to determine our response, but the delay caused here is directly related to the company’s unwillingness to arbitrate overtime guidelines.  We forwarded a letter to the company requesting an agreement to let the arbitrator decide the issue in the case.  We await the company’s reply.

3.         Contracting Out Rack Jobs

            The union has voted to arbitrate this case.  We  proposed  an issue to the company.  They are refusing to arbitrate the dispute.  We filed suit seeking to compel this arbitration on January 7, 2004.  The case was assigned to Judge Tyson and deadlines have been set in the case.  In accordance with the court’s order requiring us to submit a settlement offer, we made an offer to settle this case by arbitrating arbitrability.  The company refused.  A motion for summary judgment was filed in the case.  The opposition to the Company’s cross motion for summary judgement was filed on September 27, 2004.  We await the court’s decision.

4.         Intermediate Post Reduction

            The union has voted to arbitrate this case. We proposed an issue to the company.  They rejected our issue maintaining that the grievance is not arbitrable.  We filed suit to compel this arbitration on January 7, 2004.  The case was assigned to Judge Tyson and deadlines have been set in the case.  In accordance with the court’s order requiring us to submit a settlement offer, we made an offer to settle this case by arbitrating arbitrability.  The company refused. A motion for summary judgment was filed in this case.  The opposition to the Company’s cross motion for summary judgment was filed on September 27, 2004.  We await the court’s decision.

5.         Failure to Honor Contract Raise of .12

             The union voted to arbitrate this case. We  proposed  an issue to the company.  They are refusing to arbitrate the dispute.  We filed suit seeking to compel this arbitration on September 8, 2003.  The company answered our complaint.  We filed a status report with the court and the report was adopted at a scheduling conference today.  The deadlines in the case are set for 2004, and the union and company filed summary judgment motions on July 8, 2004.  Both parties filed oppositions to the other’s summary judgment on July 29, 2004.  The motions are pending for resolution with the court.  We await the court’s decision.

6.         Loss of Safety Valve Shop Work

            The Union requested arbitration in this case.  The Company submitted a letter to the Union dated November 25, 2003 refusing to arbitrate this grievance.  The Company position is that the case is not arbitrable.  The union voted to sue, if necessary, to compel arbitration in this case.  We contacted ExxonMobil to resolve the arbitrability issue through a stipulation. We have negotiated with the Company language for a Settlement Agreement signed by counsel.  It agrees that the parties will not need to file suit to resolve arbitrability.  Instead, the parties agree to allow the merits arbitrator to resolve arbitrability if the Union wins the Rack arbitrability case.  If the Court determines that the Rack case is not arbitrable, then the Safety Valve shop case will not be arbitrable.  The Settlement Agreement was effectuated on December 2, 2004, and we await the court’s decision in the Rack case.

 7.         Johnette Buhler

            Johnette Buhler was terminated by ExxonMobil following investigations into allegations of harassment brought forward by two employees who were in the bargaining unit. Human Resources conducted the investigation and found a violation of a company harassment policy.  Discipline was recommended, and the company decided to terminate.  We voted to arbitrate the Buhler case, and we agreed to the arbitration issue with the company.  We selected arbitrator Patrick Halter to resolve  this dispute.  We are selecting dates for the hearing.

CASES FOR CONSIDERATION

1.         Richard Achord

            Richard Achord was terminated effective October 11, 2006 for violating the company’s Gift and Entertainment Guidelines.  Achord was serving in a role as a step up supervisor at the time of the action for which he was terminated.  Achord has a clean record and is recognized as a good employee by everyone including management with the company.  His performance has always been exemplary. The arbitration was conducted on November 6 and Arbitrator Massey reinstated Mr. Achord affective November 7, 2006.