Union denies benefits to gay couples
A Boston labor union representing some 6,000 members has amended its benefit plans to exclude gay married couples from receiving health and pension benefits, evoking fear in some labor unions in Massachusetts that the move will set a dangerous precedent for other unions and employers throughout the state.
Anticipating the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts next week, trustees and administrators of the benefit plans of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103 issued a clarification of the phrase "dependent spouse" to mean "a person of the opposite sex." The clarification was announced in a letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, sent Friday to union members throughout Eastern Massachusetts.
"In light of all the changes that are coming, we just wanted to be ahead of the curve and make the clarification," administrator Russell F. Sheehan said in an interview yesterday.
One lawyer said the union's move effectively denying married couples of the same sex the same benefits as married couples of the opposite sex is legal. All employers and unions whose benefit plans are covered under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 can choose whether to extend benefits to spouses of the same sex, said Matt Giuliani, a Boston lawyer specializing in employee benefits. That includes self-insured employers and unions, as opposed to those who buy insurance and benefit plans for their members, he said.
"Federal law allows the union to decide who's covered and who's not," said Giuliani, who has conducted seminars for local employers on how to deal with the Supreme Judicial Court's decision.
The Retirement Income Security Act preempts state law, including antidiscrimination statutes and the SJC decision legalizing gay marriage, Giuliani said. But federal law does not prohibit employers and unions from offering benefits to married couples of the same-sex. Sheehan said the six trustees of the Local 103 benefit plans unanimously approved the measure clarifying definitions of dependent spouses at a meeting last month. The definitions cover the union's pension plan, health plan, and deferred income benefits, he said. Sheehan said he did not know whether life and accident insurance offered by the union also would be affected.
He said the trustees did not consider amending the benefit plans to include spouses of the same sex.
"We could have, but we didn't," Sheehan said. "I'm sure we have plenty of gay members, and that's OK. They shouldn't have expected benefits if they knew their plan."
Sheehan brushed aside any suggestion that the step could be discriminatory and stressed that his union is free to extend benefits as it sees fit.
"We could choose to change our plan and offer everybody $10,000 worth of dental each year," Sheehan said.
Local 103's decision underscores the complexity of legal issues as same-sex couples begin to receive marriage licenses Monday. Although the SJC's ruling in November was hailed as a major step toward equality for gay couples, some employers and labor organizations can still exercise discretion over whether to issue benefits to same-sex couples and their families that are equal to those given to married heterosexual couples.
The union's move has roiled many labor leaders in Massachusetts, several of whom, including those at the Service Employees International Union, have been aggressively fighting for benefits for gay partners, including marriage.
Another IBEW local denounced the move yesterday.
"That's just not the right way, that's not what America was founded on," said Miles Calvey, business manager for IBEW Local 2222 of Quincy.
Janice Loux, president of Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union Local 26, agreed. "It was surprising and disappointing because labor unions are in the business of providing wages and benefits for working families, not denying them," she said.
Some local labor leaders anticipate that other unions in Massachusetts whose plans are governed by the Retirement Income Security Act will follow Local 103's example. "Unions are just like the general population: You have those who fall on the side of social justice and then you have those unions who hold on to the past and discriminatory policies," said Celia Wcislo, president of service employees Local 2020.
Tom Barbera, vice president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO and a steering committee member of the Gay and Lesbian Labor Activists Network, expressed outrage at the Local 103's definition of dependent spouse, saying it threatened all the work done so far to assure equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian union members.
"To me it's very disappointing in this day and age, with all the progress that's been made, that we still have people that respond in a homophobic manner," he said. "We would encourage our brothers and sisters in the labor movement not to do this."
Other unions have embraced the SJC decision. Five SEIU locals, representing about 75,000 members, voted recently to extend benefits to same-sex spouses.
Donovan Slack can be reached at dslack@globe.com.
