Union denies conspiring in plant worker’s firing

By Joe Pinchot
Herald Staff Writer

PYMATUNING TOWNSHIP May 11, 2008 09:45 pm

— A union has denied that it conspired with Salem Tube Corp. to make a union member’s firing stand.
The United Steel, Paper, Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 3713, Greenville, also said it did not fail to properly represent Jeffrey Burns, 3752 N. Hermitage Road, Pymatuning Township.
Last month, Salem Tube, also of Pymatuning Township, denied that it improperly fired Burns because he had served jury duty, or that it conspired with the union.
According to Burns’ suit filed by attorney Richard B. Sandow, Pittsburgh:
Burns reported for jury duty Aug. 14, but was sent home and told to call the next morning. When he called Aug. 15, he was told to report Aug. 16. He reported Aug. 16, but was sent home and told to call the morning of Aug. 17. He was told not to report Aug. 17 and that his service had been completed.
Burns was instructed by Salem Tube to return to work Aug. 20, a Monday, and a meeting was set up for Aug. 27 to discuss his absences for jury duty. A union representative refused to assist him in the meeting, and he was fired Aug. 30 or 31 because of his jury service.
Salem Tube said in its answer filed by Robert B. Cottington of Cohen & Grigsby, Pittsburgh, that Burns only notified the company of his first day of jury service, not that he would be “missing his shifts” as Burns claimed.
The company also said Burns was not excused from his shifts Aug. 14-17 for jury duty as he claimed.
The company said its jury duty policy does not violate state and federal law.
Burns was fired for excessive absenteeism, a worker’s compensation referee said.
The union said in its answer filed Friday by United Steel Workers Assistant General Counsel Robert L. DeGregory, Pittsburgh, that it did not refuse to assist Burns, or that he was fired because of jury service.
The union also denied telling him that he had no right to representation, that he could not file a grievance or that filing a grievance would be futile.
Union officials did not escort Burns from the building on the day of his firing, as Burns has claimed, the union said.
The union said Burns talked to a union rep about his firing, but did not protest it, as Burns has claimed.
Among the union’s defenses are that it gave Burns fair representation, Burns cannot prove the company violated the contract, and that his own actions contributed to his firing.
Burns is seeking to get his job back and be awarded compensatory damages, including lost wages and benefits, costs and attorney’s fees.