I am not shocked that they would appeal them. But once they are issued by the Labor Board it is no longer in this Unions hands.

They also felt the need to inform the paper that we were denied unemployment extension. (Trade Adjustment Assistance or TAA)

Something they must be proud of, I mean thats got to make you sleep better at night knowing that you have done all you can do to make sure people suffer and then when they get denied a benefit, well thats just icing on the cake isnt it. 

As far as the TAA, yes we were denied benefits through this program. which would include extended unemployment benefits only while people are receiving schooling. But it has nothing to do with the negotiation process. It is a Federal assistance available to all employees whose employer has shipped or received materials or finished goods outside of the United States borders.

The paper also said that they (Celanese) were sending us a letter to continue talks. ( John, you sure your not negotiating through the media?)

We received a letter to continue talks. I am not sure when we will meet. The Company has not given us any time line or meeting dates in the letter we received.

So stay tuned either here or the media, thats if John decides wether he is going to negotiate through the media or not.

The Charges against Celanese are as follows: Case 33-CA-14957

1. The above-named Employer, by its officers, agents and representatives has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge 484, the collective-bargaining representative of employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes by acts and conduct including:

a. Since on or about March 31, 2005 and continuing thereafter, refusing to provide and or delaying in providing to the Union requested information regarding average hourly wage and benefit costs, copies of the health insurance benefits plan, pension plan, and profit sharing plan applicable to bargaining unit employees; a copy of the sales agreement between National Starch and the Employer; copies of customer complaints, quality control sheets, certificates of analysis, bills of lading and all goods received; the and address of the pension plan administrator; copies of the proposed POSII, Out of Area, and the dental plans.

b. Since on or about March 31, 2005, and continuing thereafter, delaying and/or refusing to meet for negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement.

c. Since on or about May 12, 2005 and continuing thereafter, engaging in dilatory and/or evasive bargaining tactics, offering final proposals without sufficient time to consider such proposals, withdrawing from tentative agreements, making unreasonable demands, and by submitting regressive proposals.

d. Since on or about June 5, 2005 and continuing thereafter, locking out employees in support of its unlawful bargaining.

2. The above- named Employer, by its officers, agents and representatives, since on or about June 5, 2005 has discriminated against its bargaining unit employees by locking them out in order to discourage membership in or activities on behalf of the Union.

Another Charge brought against the Company by the Union is as follows: 33- CA-14940