GM sues Fiat Chrysler over union bribes | TribLIVE.com
News

GM sues Fiat Chrysler over union bribes

Associated Press
1967533_web1_1967533-f068869d6546402095b65584250b1da9
AP

DETROIT — General Motors is suing Fiat Chrysler, alleging that its crosstown rival got an unfair business advantage by bribing officials of the United Auto Workers union.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Detroit, alleges that FCA was involved in racketeering by paying millions in bribes to get concessions and gain advantages in three labor agreements with the union.

Details of the racketeering have been exposed in a federal probe of corruption at the union that has resulted in multiple arrests.

The lawsuit alleges that Fiat Chrysler corrupted the bargaining process with the UAW in the 2009, 2011 and 2015 union contracts to gain advantages over General Motors.

Craig Glidden, GM’s chief counsel, alleged that Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, who died last year, was a “central figure” in the conspiracy, which was designed to put GM at a cost disadvantage to FCA.

“FCA was the clear sponsor of pervasive wrongdoing, paying millions of dollars in bribes to obtain concessions” from the union, Glidden said. “FCA’s manipulation of the collective bargaining process resulted in unfair labor costs and operational advantages for it, causing harm to GM.”

A message was left Wednesday seeking comment from Fiat Chrysler.

In addition to Fiat Chrysler, the lawsuit names former FCA labor relations chief Alphons Iacobelli, and former FCA officials Jerome Durden and Michael Brown as defendants. All have pleaded guilty in the federal corruption probe, which has alleged that Fiat Chrysler bribed UAW officials to keep them “fat, dumb and happy.”

Authorities have alleged that payments were made through a training center jointly run by the company and the UAW. Durden handled the training center’s finances, and Brown helped run the center.

Glidden told reporters that in the three UAW contracts, FCA was able to reduce its labor costs because the union allowed it to hire more temporary and lower-paid workers than GM.

“Many of the advantages FCA was able to obtain were denied to GM. That was part of the conspiracy,” Glidden said.

In 2007, the union agreed that new hires would be paid less than longtime workers, setting up a “second-tier” of employees who were paid less. FCA had more second-tier workers than either of its Detroit competitors.

Glidden said GM is not suing the UAW because it believes that responsibility rests with FCA, which was the “orchestrator” of the conspiracy. He accused FCA of mismanagement of “stunning proportions” and should be held accountable.

“GM was chosen as a target by FCA, so that’s why we’re suing FCA,” he said. “We were denied benefits that FCA received under their collective bargaining agreements and were damaged as a result.

Glidden said GM is seeking substantial damages in the case, but he could not give a specific amount.

Last week, a retired union vice president and former GM board member became the 13th person to be charged in the federal probe of the union and auto companies.

Joe Ashton is accused of receiving millions of dollars in kickbacks from a contractor who made watches for union members. The 58,000 watches, purchased through the GM-UAW joint training center, are still in storage five years later.

Ashton, a former GM board member, was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiring to commit money laundering. A guilty plea is expected on Dec. 4, according to a court filing Wednesday.

Glidden said GM had no knowledge of the scheme that allegedly involved Ashton, and the lawsuit had nothing to do with that case.

“In the fullness of time, GM will address that conduct,” he said.

Categories: Business
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.