Thomson Reuters and US union settle 8 PIP cases, 7 leave

Under a settlement reached in late December but announced by the union only today, six of the eight journalists decided not to return to the company in exchange for enhanced severance terms. The other two were given until the end of January to decide whether to return to their old jobs with discipline-free records. On Friday, one of the two decided against returning.

In addition to the options of enhanced severance or getting their jobs back, all eight have been or will be made whole from the dates of their terminations to the end of 2012 for any loss of benefits and loss of pay, for those whose bi-weekly severance payments lapsed before year-end.

With seven journalists having chosen not to return and management having expunged all of the discipline of the journalist who is still deciding, the Guild has withdrawn all 19 grievances that were scheduled for arbitration on behalf of the eight journalists. All had multiple arbitrations pending, one for each step of the disciplinary process that led to their terminations.

The Guild also withdrew another four arbitrations challenging the PIP-related discipline of four other journalists who are still with the company, after management notified the employees and the union that it had expunged the related discipline of each.

Also withdrawn by the Guild was an unfair labour practice charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board after management contacted each of the eight terminated journalists in early December and unilaterally offered to reinstate them without first discussing the terms with the Guild.

The Guild said the settlement closed a chapter of the PIP saga in which more than 30 journalists, who tended to be older and have longer service with Reuters than their colleagues, were targeted by editorial management last year with discipline that prompted nine of them to leave the company under separation agreements, in addition to the eight whose cases were just settled.

“Yet to be resolved, however, are grievances over verbal warnings issued to 15 journalists, who are still with the company. As a matter of policy, management never removes verbal warnings from the records of employees, although their practical use as stepping stones to more serious discipline diminishes greatly after a year or two. Even though they are not part of employees’ personnel files, they are can be invoked as a basis for more advanced discipline if a manager believes a triggering event has occurred.”

The Guild said management had refused to retract the verbal warnings of the 15 still-employed journalists, claiming that the reach of the arbitrator’s ruling that effectively voided the use of PIPs for discipline did not extend to those reprimands. Technically, management claims, each verbal warning that alleged poor performance was issued before each ensuing PIP. ■