Why ship sails without ousted Convention Center workers

Glenn "Ty" Tyson, a union carpenter, hands out informational sheets in front of the Pennsylvania Convention Center on Feb. 3, 2015. CLEM MURRAY / Staff Photographer

So who does have jurisdiction to settle claims by union carpenters and Teamsters that the Convention Center has wrongfully denied them the right to work in the building?

Maybe nobody.

In July, the National Labor Relations Board said it did not have the right to hear the case because the unions' beef was with the state-run Convention Center Authority, and it doesn't have jurisdiction over state entities.

Hearing that decision, the unions turned to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, which handles state labor disputes.

On Monday, a PLRB hearing examiner said the PLRB didn't have the right to hear the case because union workers at the center are not state employees.

"Bizarre," said Martin O'Rourke, spokesman for the Metropolitan Regional Council of union carpenters. Monday's "finding by a PLRB hearing examiner totally contradicts the NLRB decision," he said.

The dual decisions are good for the Convention Center management, bad for the two ousted unions.

"Sometimes there isn't a jurisdiction," said John McNichol, the center's chief executive. "As a nonlawyer, I'll say this: The law has no remedy for someone who chooses not to enter into a contract."

To review: In May, the Convention Center Authority gave all six unions working at the center until May 5 to sign a new customer-satisfaction agreement. Four signed on time, but not the Teamsters or Carpenters.

They signed a few days later, but their work had already been divided among the other unions.

The two unions were out, left to stage periodic protests outside the building and to file charges with the two labor boards.

So why can't either board rule on this matter?

The boards' rulings turn on two issues - who employs union workers at the center and whether the satisfaction agreement was bargained with the unions' employer.

The employment situation is complicated.

The PCC's union workers receive paychecks from Elliott-Lewis Corp., a Philadelphia-based company under contract with the Convention Center Authority. Groups holding events at the center pay Elliott-Lewis for labor, and Elliott-Lewis pays the workers.

The way the unions see it, the Convention Center Authority and Elliott-Lewis are joint employers.

In its July ruling, the NLRB said it would be possible to take that view.

But "Elliott-Lewis . . . took no part in the negotiations," the NLRB regional director wrote on July 14.

Negotiations were solely handled by the Convention Center Authority, a state entity, the NLRB said. So, on to the PLRB.

On Monday, the PLRB's hearing examiner said the Convention Center Authority "is not a joint employer" with Elliott-Lewis. The unions were employees of Elliott-Lewis, a private company, and therefore the unions cannot bring their claims before the PLRB.

"The Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters vehemently disagrees with the finding," Edward Coryell, the Carpenters leader, said in a statement.

His union "signed the customer-satisfaction agreement with the Pennsylvania Convention Center and not Elliott-Lewis," Coryell said Monday.

Teamsters leader William Hamilton did not return calls for comment.

McNichol tried to explain the situation with this analogy: Picture the Convention Center as a cruise ship with a set of rules and a departure time.

Everyone who gets on board - no matter how much they paid for a room or how much they get paid to be on the crew - has to agree to wear a funny hat on Funny Hat Night.

"Suppose someone says, '... No, I'm not wearing a funny hat,' " McNichol said. Then the ship leaves at 1 p.m. as promised.

"If they show up at 1:05 p.m. and say OK, they'll wear the funny hat - well, the ship has already gone and their deck chairs have been given to someone else."

Source: Philly.com