Workers at ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥-based Asarco LLC will have to wait until at least November for the next step in their legal battle to win millions of dollars in copper-price bonuses they say Asarco owes them.
In a notice filed Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it is tentatively looking to hear arguments in November in an appeal Asarco filed to challenge a lower-court ruling upholding the bonuses.
The court said the case is being considered for the November 2017 oral argument calendar at its Pasadena, California, courthouse, but the exact date has not yet been set.
The bonus issue affects about 550 Asarco employees hired after June 30, 2011, and still employed as of March 2015, as well as 180 former hourly employees, court records show.
More than 2,000 union-represented Asarco employees work at Asarco copper mines, smelter and refineries spread across five locations in ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ and Texas. The workers, represented by eight unions led by the United Steelworkers, have been working without a contract since the last one expired in June 2013 amid rancorous negotiations.
People are also reading…
In July 2016, a U.S. District Court judge in Phoenix denied Asarco’s motion to reconsider his earlier ruling that an arbitrator acted properly in ordering Asarco to pay the bonuses.
Asarco appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit in August, halting any moves to compel payment of the bonuses pending resolution by the appellate court.
Asarco, part of Mexico-based mining giant Grupo Mexico, had alleged in a federal lawsuit filed in January 2015 that an arbitrator exceeded his authority by ordering the company to pay a quarterly copper-price bonus to union employees who are not part of the company’s pension plan.
Long delays in docketing appeals are not unusual at the Ninth Circuit, which advises that once filed, it takes about 12 to 20 months for an appeal to reach oral arguments.
Asarco may end up paying out more if the judgment stands, due to the appeal.
The lower-court ruling required Asarco to pay post-judgment interest on the amount awarded by the arbitrator — then estimated to be worth more than $10 million — dating to the judge’s original decision in March 2016.