A strike at a southwest Chicago tool factory has caught the attention of U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.
Solis, in town yesterday as part of Labor Day celebrations, said the Department of Labor is examining allegations of unfair labor practices at the SK Hand Tool Corp., where dozens of workers have been picketing since last week.
"They have notified our department, and we are looking into that matter," Solis said.
She was responding to a question from the Daily News after her speech at the Union League Club of Chicago. Following a luncheon there, she spoke briefly with representatives of Teamsters Local 743. The union's workers claim that their health-care benefits were unfairly and unexpectedly canceled in May.
A spokesman at SK said that its health-care provider, not the company, decided to cancel coverage, and that economic conditions have made it difficult to continue offering benefits.
But workers said that they did not receive notice from SK or Blue Cross Blue Shield until after their coverage expired. They allege that the reason the provider canceled benefits was that the company stopped paying premiums.
Solis said she learned about the issue when she arrived in Chicago on Tuesday. Senior staff told the Daily News that she was briefed on the matter, but is not familiar with details.
"She's made sure that the proper people at the Chicago regional office are aware of what's going on, and she will follow up to make sure that they do what they're supposed to do," said Carl Fillichio, a senior adviser to the secretary for public affairs.
Brad Mitchell, regional information director at the department's Chicago office, said local staff is looking into the matter, but stopped short of calling it an investigation. Mitchell declined to comment specifically on the Teamsters case to avoid prejudicing it.
Instead, he outlined two hypothetical situations.
Mitchell said that if a provider accepted employee premiums before it discontinued coverage, then it would be responsible for payments on any medical treatment until the point of cancellation.
However, he said, the responsibility might shift if money for premiums did not reach the provider.
"If deductions were made from employees' checks, and the company did not turn that over to insurers, then the company has a problem," Mitchell said.
The Labor Department's jurisdiction over the issue is distinct from that of the National Labor Relations Board, which is formally investigating the Teamsters case after the union filed charges at its regional office in May.
Mitchell said that Labor Department officials look at the case through the prism of benefits compliance, via the department's Employee Benefits Security Administration. The board, meanwhile, would investigate whether an employer broke a contract with organized workers by canceling benefits, or by its manner of doing so.
The board issues a complaint if, based on witness testimony or other available evidence, it appears that a violation has occurred and a charged employer refuses to voluntarily fix it. A complaint leads to a hearing with an administrative law judge, who again reviews evidence to determine what the union may receive as a result of its charge. The board or U.S. courts may review the judge's decision.
In July, the board issued a complaint against the company in response to the union's initial charge of an unfair labor practice. An administrative hearing on that case is scheduled for Sept. 3, according to the union.
Last month, the Teamsters filed a second charge with the board, alleging that SK managers have refused to provide information on its financials or health insurance, materials that the union contends are necessary for collective bargaining.
The board has not yet ruled on that case.
"They have notified our department, and we are looking into that matter," Solis said.
She was responding to a question from the Daily News after her speech at the Union League Club of Chicago. Following a luncheon there, she spoke briefly with representatives of Teamsters Local 743. The union's workers claim that their health-care benefits were unfairly and unexpectedly canceled in May.
A spokesman at SK said that its health-care provider, not the company, decided to cancel coverage, and that economic conditions have made it difficult to continue offering benefits.
But workers said that they did not receive notice from SK or Blue Cross Blue Shield until after their coverage expired. They allege that the reason the provider canceled benefits was that the company stopped paying premiums.
Solis said she learned about the issue when she arrived in Chicago on Tuesday. Senior staff told the Daily News that she was briefed on the matter, but is not familiar with details.
"She's made sure that the proper people at the Chicago regional office are aware of what's going on, and she will follow up to make sure that they do what they're supposed to do," said Carl Fillichio, a senior adviser to the secretary for public affairs.
Brad Mitchell, regional information director at the department's Chicago office, said local staff is looking into the matter, but stopped short of calling it an investigation. Mitchell declined to comment specifically on the Teamsters case to avoid prejudicing it.
Instead, he outlined two hypothetical situations.
Mitchell said that if a provider accepted employee premiums before it discontinued coverage, then it would be responsible for payments on any medical treatment until the point of cancellation.
However, he said, the responsibility might shift if money for premiums did not reach the provider.
"If deductions were made from employees' checks, and the company did not turn that over to insurers, then the company has a problem," Mitchell said.
The Labor Department's jurisdiction over the issue is distinct from that of the National Labor Relations Board, which is formally investigating the Teamsters case after the union filed charges at its regional office in May.
Mitchell said that Labor Department officials look at the case through the prism of benefits compliance, via the department's Employee Benefits Security Administration. The board, meanwhile, would investigate whether an employer broke a contract with organized workers by canceling benefits, or by its manner of doing so.
The board issues a complaint if, based on witness testimony or other available evidence, it appears that a violation has occurred and a charged employer refuses to voluntarily fix it. A complaint leads to a hearing with an administrative law judge, who again reviews evidence to determine what the union may receive as a result of its charge. The board or U.S. courts may review the judge's decision.
In July, the board issued a complaint against the company in response to the union's initial charge of an unfair labor practice. An administrative hearing on that case is scheduled for Sept. 3, according to the union.
Last month, the Teamsters filed a second charge with the board, alleging that SK managers have refused to provide information on its financials or health insurance, materials that the union contends are necessary for collective bargaining.
The board has not yet ruled on that case.
Discuss
Comments for this article are now closed