IBEW Telephone Locals Win Hard-Fought Battle Over Verizon Call Center Closings
On June 3, 2014, a tripartite arbitration panel issued a landmark decision in favor of IBEW, Local 2321 (in Northeastern Massachusetts) and IBEW, Local 2324 (in Western Massachusetts) in a hard-fought case over Verizon's surprise decision to close call centers only a few months after signing a new contract in which Verizon promised to “staff up” centers in those local areas.
The case had its roots in the contentious negotiations between the IBEW and Verizon both before and after the August 2011 strike by the IBEW after the previous Verizon CBA expired. Throughout the negotiations, the Union Locals railed against the Company’s proposals for “call sharing” – fearing that Verizon would transfer calls from New England to other parts of the country to reduce the unionized workforce. During those negotiations, high-ranking Company officials stated again and again at the bargaining table that they had no plans to close call centers, though they stopped short of promising to keep centers open. Based in part on the Company’s repeated assertions, the Unions ultimately agreed to some limited call sharing in exchange for Verizon’s promise to add a specific number of additional call center jobs – including jobs to be placed within the areas represented by Local 2321 and Local 2324.
Within three months after signing these agreements, Verizon took its first steps toward closing call centers in Andover and Springfield, Massachusetts, and moving all the affected employees to Providence, Rhode Island. IBEW Business Managers Ed Starr (L. 2321) and John Rowley (L. 2324) immediately challenged the Company’s decision as violating both the letter and the spirit of the agreement on additional center jobs. Though the Company delayed implementation of its decision for several months, it ultimately closed the two centers.
Pyle Rome attorney Alfred Gordon O’Connell argued the case at arbitration for both Union Locals. Despite the fact that Verizon had reserved its management rights to close call centers and had never specifically agreed to keep the Andover and Springfield centers open, the arbitration panel held that Verizon violated the agreement to staff up those centers. Even though much of the agreed-upon hiring had taken place prior to the announced closings, the arbitration panel was concerned about Verizon’s “decision to close the [centers] when the ink was barely dry on the agreement, and before the promised positions for the Locals even became a reality, [which] dislodged the foundation upon which the quid pro quo was ultimately reached.”
Upon issuance of the award, Verizon and the Local Unions reached agreement on remedies for the affected employees who either left the Company or were involuntarily relocated and ensuring that Verizon lives up to the obligations on local staffing it agreed to at the bargaining table.
