Ousted Convention Center unions to get hearing

Reversing his earlier decision, a Pennsylvania labor relations hearing examiner has set in motion the possibility that union carpenters, barred from work at the Convention Center, may be allowed to return.

It's potentially good news for the carpenters, who have long complained they were improperly ousted, but the upshot could be "a catastrophic loss of bookings that will devastate the hospitality industry," the Convention Center's chief executive wrote in an e-mail.

Similar reactions came from the leaders of the Greater Philadelphia Hotel Association and the Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau.

In March, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board hearing examiner Jack E. Marino dismissed complaints by the Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters and Teamsters Local 107 that the two unions had been improperly banned from the facility last May.

Marino's initial ruling appeared to be the end of the road for the unions, despite many protests outside the building and an appeal to the National Labor Relations Board that was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Marino's 14-page opinion, issued Thursday, changes the equation, particularly because Marino indicates that there may be some merit to the unions' complaints.

"It's certainly positive news," said William Hamilton, head of Teamsters Local 107. "It will give a forum to at least hear the facts. It's not going to be instant coffee. It's going to be months and months away."

The Carpenters and Teamsters lost the right to work in the building after they failed to sign a new customer-satisfaction agreement by a management-imposed deadline in May. Both unions signed a few days later. Four other unions that worked in the building signed before the deadline.

After the Carpenters and Teamsters lost jurisdiction in the building, their work was divided among the remaining four unions.

"We are confident that once all of the evidence is heard and examined by the state PLRB, they will . . . find that PA Convention Center violated the law and will direct them to allow carpenters to return to their jobs," Carpenters Union spokesman Martin O'Rourke wrote in a statement, saying the union was pleased with Marino's change of heart.

Not so John J. McNichol, the Convention Center's chief executive. "It's a head-scratcher," he said in a brief interview.

"To our knowledge, no new evidence has been introduced since the hearing officer's original ruling, so the reason for this reversal is unclear, which is troubling," he wrote in an earlier e-mail.

Almost since the Convention Center opened, customers who brought trade shows and conventions to Philadelphia had complained about high labor costs - primarily driven by inefficiencies in the number of workers needed and jurisdictional disputes among unions.

Over time, bookings fell, as the hassles of producing a convention in Philadelphia outweighed the city's popularity with attendees who liked the proximity of the Convention Center to hotels and tourist attractions.

While some people praised the work of the carpenters, many of the complaints were directed at that union in particular.

Since the changes, the Convention Center staff says, 28 major new shows and conventions have been booked, filling hotel rooms for 560,000 nights and bringing in an estimated $872 million in economic impact.

"However," McNichol wrote, "many customers have been savvy enough to include provisions in their agreements that if the carpenters return to the building, they have the right to cancel their events."

Marino said he would soon set a hearing schedule. After he hears the case and rules, his decision isn't the last word. Either side can appeal to the full three-member PLRB board, and the board's decision can be appealed to Commonwealth Court.

A key issue is whether the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority is a joint employer of the union workers with Elliott-Lewis Corp., a Philadelphia company that handles payroll and other administrative functions, as the unions argue, or whether Elliott-Lewis is the only employer, the authority's point of view.

The carpenters had argued that the authority ousted them in retaliation for two legal work stoppages and for refusing to agree to a reduction in their work by an unreasonable deadline.

"Accepting the well-pleaded facts true," Marino wrote, "there is a colorable claim of discrimination, provided a joint employer relationship exists."

@JaneVonBergen www.philly.com/jobbing