Search News
For the Media
For media inquiries, call CWA Communications at 202-434-1168 or email comms@cwa-union.org. To read about CWA Members, Leadership or Industries, visit our About page.
Chicago Sun-Times Printers Win Age Bias Ruling
At least 15 journeyman printers at the Chicago Sun-Times were transferred to door-to-door sales jobs in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined.
International Typographical Union 16 (CWA Local 14408) filed an EEOC complaint in the name of Alvin Bengson Jr., 52, representing an entire class of older printers who accepted involuntary transfers or took buyouts under duress.
EEOC District Director John P. Rowe determined that the Commission’s investigation “establishes reasonable cause to believe that the respondent (Chicago Sun-Times) has discriminated against a class of older employees — journeyman printers, including charging party, in violation of the ADEA, in that it has undertaken a course of action which has caused and is intended to cause the termination of their employment.”
“This ruling really sends a message to employers who think the only way to get rid of people is to try to devise a job so repugnant they would want to quit,” said Local President Steven Berman.
He pointed out that although some courts have ruled that to cut payroll, employers can lay off older, more expensive workers and hire younger, less expensive employees, this situation is different insomuch as the Sun-Times signed an agreement with the local, providing a virtual lifetime job guarantee to 96 printers on a protected list.
The agreement, effective through 2004, allows them to retain their journeyman wage rate until they resign, retire, become permanently disabled, die or are discharged for cause. If a printer voluntarily transfers to another job, terms of the agreement provide that he be paid the wage rate for that job and give up his contractual wage guarantee. But the company, beginning Jan. 1, 1997, could involuntarily transfer printers if it still paid them at the journeyman rate.
In March, the company notified all the printers that it intended to transfer 15 to door-to-door sales jobs, an occupation it previously — and to this day — subcontracts. If fewer than 15 volunteered, up to 15 would be offered a buyout of $53,104 plus contributions to health insurance. In April, the company expanded the transfer/buyout offer to include an additional 10 printers.
Between April 1 and June 30, at least 15 of the least senior printers, aged 50 to 74, accepted involuntary transfers to sales. Only five were transferred to platemaking and engraving, though there were numerous such positions that could have used printers’ skills. Younger workers, most in their 20s, were hired to fill the remaining skilled jobs. Fifteen printers requested and accepted the buyout.
The type of sales job was “highly undersirable inasmuch as the work was menial, compared to the skilled craft position of a printer, and entailed terms and conditions which were difficult and hazardous, such as extremes of temperature and weather and neighborhoods which were considered unsafe,” Rowe states.
“It is reasonable to conclude (the Sun-Times) limited this class of older workers in this manner because it believed that being in the door-to-door sales jobs would induce the printers to take an early permanent separation,” he continues. “It is also reasonable to infer that the printers who have already (accepted the buyout) were impelled to do so, in large part, because of the prospect of being transferred to a sales job.”
The EEOC has invited the local and the Sun-Times to participate in a conciliation process to provide “corrective and preventive relief.” Suggested remedies include restoration of victims to their former positions and, where applicable, back pay and benefits.
Should the Sun-Times challenge the EEOC’s findings, said Berman, “they will force us into federal district court.”
International Typographical Union 16 (CWA Local 14408) filed an EEOC complaint in the name of Alvin Bengson Jr., 52, representing an entire class of older printers who accepted involuntary transfers or took buyouts under duress.
EEOC District Director John P. Rowe determined that the Commission’s investigation “establishes reasonable cause to believe that the respondent (Chicago Sun-Times) has discriminated against a class of older employees — journeyman printers, including charging party, in violation of the ADEA, in that it has undertaken a course of action which has caused and is intended to cause the termination of their employment.”
“This ruling really sends a message to employers who think the only way to get rid of people is to try to devise a job so repugnant they would want to quit,” said Local President Steven Berman.
He pointed out that although some courts have ruled that to cut payroll, employers can lay off older, more expensive workers and hire younger, less expensive employees, this situation is different insomuch as the Sun-Times signed an agreement with the local, providing a virtual lifetime job guarantee to 96 printers on a protected list.
The agreement, effective through 2004, allows them to retain their journeyman wage rate until they resign, retire, become permanently disabled, die or are discharged for cause. If a printer voluntarily transfers to another job, terms of the agreement provide that he be paid the wage rate for that job and give up his contractual wage guarantee. But the company, beginning Jan. 1, 1997, could involuntarily transfer printers if it still paid them at the journeyman rate.
In March, the company notified all the printers that it intended to transfer 15 to door-to-door sales jobs, an occupation it previously — and to this day — subcontracts. If fewer than 15 volunteered, up to 15 would be offered a buyout of $53,104 plus contributions to health insurance. In April, the company expanded the transfer/buyout offer to include an additional 10 printers.
Between April 1 and June 30, at least 15 of the least senior printers, aged 50 to 74, accepted involuntary transfers to sales. Only five were transferred to platemaking and engraving, though there were numerous such positions that could have used printers’ skills. Younger workers, most in their 20s, were hired to fill the remaining skilled jobs. Fifteen printers requested and accepted the buyout.
The type of sales job was “highly undersirable inasmuch as the work was menial, compared to the skilled craft position of a printer, and entailed terms and conditions which were difficult and hazardous, such as extremes of temperature and weather and neighborhoods which were considered unsafe,” Rowe states.
“It is reasonable to conclude (the Sun-Times) limited this class of older workers in this manner because it believed that being in the door-to-door sales jobs would induce the printers to take an early permanent separation,” he continues. “It is also reasonable to infer that the printers who have already (accepted the buyout) were impelled to do so, in large part, because of the prospect of being transferred to a sales job.”
The EEOC has invited the local and the Sun-Times to participate in a conciliation process to provide “corrective and preventive relief.” Suggested remedies include restoration of victims to their former positions and, where applicable, back pay and benefits.
Should the Sun-Times challenge the EEOC’s findings, said Berman, “they will force us into federal district court.”