Appeal planned in Lund vacation lawsuit

By Lauren Radomski | The Daily Journal

Published 11:52 a.m., June 29, 2009

Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Lund Boat Company say they intend to appeal a ruling that’s left them shocked.

The 19 plaintiffs represent about 200 current and former employees who claim they were denied earned vacation pay by Lund and its parent company, Brunswick Corporation. The suit alleges Lund broke contracts with its employees during the switch to a new vacation policy, which occurred after Brunswick took ownership of the company in 2004.

Under previous owner Genmar Industries, Inc., employees earned vacation hours on July 1 of each year. Those hours, based on years of service with the company, could be used to take time off until June 30 of the next year. Employees who didn’t use all of their vacation hours received cash payouts before the start of the next model year.

With the purchase by Brunswick, the policy changed. As of July 1, 2005, employees began to earn vacation hours on a per-pay-period basis based on years of service — a so-called “earn and burn” policy. Plaintiffs, who filed the suit in June 2007, say they lost up to four weeks worth of vacation time in the change.

But in a ruling issued earlier this month, an Otter Tail County District Court judge disagreed. According to Judge Mark Hansen, plaintiffs suffered no loss of benefits in the change to the new vacation policy. That policy was effectively modified in the employee handbook, which served as an employment agreement between workers and the company, Hansen said in his decision. Employees should have known of the changes, Hansen said, and the fact that they continued to work signaled acceptance of those changes.

That’s news to Jack Herr, who worked for Lund for 38 years before he was laid off last November. He, fellow plaintiffs and their attorneys had left court proceedings in February feeling confident in their case.

“We don’t understand what happened and how the judge came to this decision,” Herr said. “We thought we had it. We thought it was a sure thing.”

Herr said he signed to acknowledge reading the revised employee handbook, but that employees did not see it until summer 2005, months after Lund management held company-wide meetings regarding the Brunswick purchase. In court proceedings, attorneys for Lund argued those company-wide meetings had served to modify employee contracts.

Another plaintiff, Steve Eklund, disputes the judge’s statement that because employees continued to work, they accepted the changes. Eklund wonders where workers were supposed to go when many have homes and families in New York Mills. He’s one of them, joining Lund after high school and spending 29 years with the company before he was laid off in November.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Steven Smith of Minneapolis-based Nichols Kaster, PLLP, said both sides had indicated they would appeal if the court’s ruling was not in their favor. Kaster said he intended to file the first motion in the appeals process in the next couple of weeks.

A spokesperson for Illinois-based Brunswick Corporation, Daniel Kubera, said the company was pleased with the court’s ruling and that they feel it was fair.

Plaintiffs disagree. Eklund and Herr say they are owed $3,000 each for four weeks of lost vacation pay. But more than that, they would like to be treated fairly for their work.

“This isn’t about money. It’s about a fair thing,” Eklund said. “Until someone stands up and says enough is enough companies are going to continue to do this to people.”

---

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?

---