Activists Sue MTA, TWU
Claim Double-Charge on Health

By RICHARD STEIER

A group of New York City Transit employees is suing both their employer and their union over additional health-benefit contributions they made more than a decade ago as part of a deal that improved their pension status.

The Chief-Leader/Ginger Adams Otis BEING CHARGED TWICE: Daniel (Pete) D'Antonio (right), joined by fellow Transport Workers' Union Local 100 activist Irving Lee, claims the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has been able to get away with collecting $20 million from workers more than a decade ago to ensure the same extended health-benefit coverage that the union negotiated under its recent contract in lieu of other benefit gains.

Those contributions were intended to pay for a benefit that is a key element of the recent Transport Workers' Union Local 100 contract: full health coverage for retirees between the ages of 55 and 62.

Deceived by Old Regime

The employees who are suing, led by Train Operator Daniel P. (Pete) D'Antonio, note that a past administration of Local 100 concealed from them that they had to pay a percentage of salary toward their health coverage in order to get the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to support legislation granting a full pension at age 55 after 25 years of service.

They also accuse the MTA of improperly retaining the roughly $20 million in health-benefit contributions that were made before a membership uproar led to the discontinuation of those deductions.

The suit, which was filed in May, gained additional relevance, Mr. D'Antonio said in an interview, with the Local 100 contract that was awarded by an arbitration panel Dec. 15. One component of that deal is the commitment by the MTA to continue full health coverage for retirees between the age of 55 and 65 - the point at which they qualify for Medicare.

The additional deductions for health coverage that were made beginning in 1995 were meant to cover the MTA's new costs in that area for employees who, under the 25/55 bill, were eligible to retire at full pension before going on Medicare.

MTA: No Wrongdoing

An MTA spokesman declined comment, citing the pending litigation. In its initial formal response to the complaint last June, an agency attorney denied the allegations and said its actions regarding the health-benefit contributions "were in good faith and for good cause."

A Local 100 attorney, Arthur Schwartz - who had represented the dissident group that challenged the original deal reached by then-union President Damaso Seda regarding the pension improvement and the payment of health premiums that resulted - pointed out that the union had been unsuccessful when it pressed all the way to the state Court of Appeals to compel the MTA to voluntarily return the additional pension contributions made under that deal. (Those contributions, which amounted to an extra 2.3 percent of salary, are being refunded as part of the contract award, meaning Local 100 had to settle for less financially in other areas to secure the repayment.)

"I don't think that any litigation now over something that's already been litigated is going to get anybody anywhere," Mr. Schwartz said.

'There Was Fraud Here'

Mr. D'Antonio disagreed, saying he believed a court might nullify the original deal because Mr. Seda had deceived Local 100 members about what it entailed. "There definitely was a fraud perpetrated here; no question about it," he said.

Mr. Seda, Mr. Schwartz said, at the time that the 25/55 bill was approved in mid-1994 (it took effect Jan. 1, 1995) led members to believe that the health-benefits contributions were required under the legislation. In fact, those contributions were not mandated but rather part of a side agreement he reached with MTA officials.

Once the truth emerged, pressure from within the union led the matter to be submitted to arbitration, and prompted Mr. Seda's "promotion" to a position with the International TWU and his replacement as Local 100 President by Willie James.

Reversal of Fortune

Mr. D'Antonio said that the arbitrator, George Nicolau disallowed the added health-benefit contributions. Mr. Schwartz disagreed, saying that the end result was that the contributions were discontinued but that Mr. Nicolau did not rule on the status of the contributions that had already been made. Mr. Nicolau was out of the country last week and could not be reached.

The suit states that Mr. D'Antonio and his fellow plaintiffs learned that they would not be able to recoup the health contributions early last year when they made inquiries about their retirement rights and were told that as part of a 1996 contract reopener, Local 100 had allowed the MTA to use the $20 million in contributions to deal with a budget deficit that existed. Shortly after the reopener agreement was reached, the MTA announced that a shift in its financial fortunes had provided it with a significant surplus.

Mr. D'Antonio said that if his lawsuit went to trial, it might not be decided until 2009.