Actuary: No Need for SAG-AFTRA Study

Screen Actors Guild is striking back in a lawsuit designed to put the brakes on the potential SAGAmerican Federation of Television and Radio Artists merger. On March 5, SAG filed a declaration stating that the former chief actuary for the consulting firm Mercer, which conducted a study on pension and health plans that was done before the failed 2003 merger attempt, believes that information from a new actuarial study wouldn't be beneficial to members. A group of actors opposed to merger, many of whom are former SAG leadership, filed a lawsuit against SAG and its leaders last month demanding a new study. The group questions the assertion by merger proponents that the creation of SAG-AFTRA will increase leverage and not harm benefits."We were put in the position to have to do the lawsuit because we exhausted all other internal remedies we tried to achieve without involving the courts," said Anne-Marie Johnson, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and a SAG board member. (Johnson and several other plaintiffs involved in the current case have previously sued the guild.)However, according to the declaration, a new report conducted now would produce only an overwhelmingly large list of the possibilities for the pension and health trustees to consider when they begin their own merger plans. SAG has filed a counter motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Johnson said she thinks a study would show the merger to have a negative impact on benefits and that members should have all of the information to make a decision. SAG and AFTRA conducted a feasibility review in which seven lawyers with backgrounds in employee benefit-plan labor law concluded that the merger of the health and pension plans is possible and legal. The report includes no details about how such a merger for SAG-AFTRA will be handled. However, it does state, "The plans' trustees have a legal obligation to ensure that no participants' accrued benefits will be less after the merger than it was before the merger." It's not likely the trustees will begin exploring their options of merging plans until after the unions merge. An actuary study is expected to occur at that time.A hearing related to the lawsuit has been set for March 26, and no decision is expected before then. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the member vote to approve the mergerballots were mailed last week and must be returned by March 30will be suspended. "This lawsuit is completely without merit," said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, deputy national executive director and general counsel for SAG. "The merger should and will be decided through the democratic process and the votes of our members. Lawsuits like this serve only to waste member dues and guild resources that could be far better spent. The guild fully expects the court to decline the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, allowing the members' voices to decide this issue."When the suit was originally filed last month, SAG released a statement saying, "Any suggestion that the members have not been fully and fairly informed is preposterous."In 2003, an internal memoone whose accuracy was recently cast in doubtrelated to the Mercer report was perceived as having a negative impact on the final outcome of the SAG member ratification vote. Despite unsuccessful attempts to merge in 1998 and 2003, the leadership of SAG and AFTRA say that as the industry changes and is influenced by technology and ever-growing media conglomerates, the needs of the members can be better served by a larger union with more bargaining power. "Competition will be a thing of the past because SAG-AFTRA will be the only game in town," said Mike Hodge, SAG NY division president. "It will give usmore power to negotiate the best pay, residuals, and benefits with more work under union contracts."At least 60 percent of both unions' membership has to vote yes for the referendum to pass. Dual card members have the chance to vote twice, once for SAG and once for AFTRA. With AFTRA traditionally supporting a merger and SAG voting it down both previous times, the idea appears to have gained more traction with SAG's membership this time around. Pro-merger leadership has been voted into office in the last two election cycles, signalingat least in the eyes of those electedthat the membership is behind the idea. By Laura Lee March 7, 2012 Screen Actors Guild is striking back in a lawsuit designed to put the brakes on the potential SAGAmerican Federation of Television and Radio Artists merger. On March 5, SAG filed a declaration stating that the former chief actuary for the consulting firm Mercer, which conducted a study on pension and health plans that was done before the failed 2003 merger attempt, believes that information from a new actuarial study wouldn't be beneficial to members. A group of actors opposed to merger, many of whom are former SAG leadership, filed a lawsuit against SAG and its leaders last month demanding a new study. The group questions the assertion by merger proponents that the creation of SAG-AFTRA will increase leverage and not harm benefits."We were put in the position to have to do the lawsuit because we exhausted all other internal remedies we tried to achieve without involving the courts," said Anne-Marie Johnson, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and a SAG board member. (Johnson and several other plaintiffs involved in the current case have previously sued the guild.)However, according to the declaration, a new report conducted now would produce only an overwhelmingly large list of the possibilities for the pension and health trustees to consider when they begin their own merger plans. SAG has filed a counter motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Johnson said she thinks a study would show the merger to have a negative impact on benefits and that members should have all of the information to make a decision. SAG and AFTRA conducted a feasibility review in which seven lawyers with backgrounds in employee benefit-plan labor law concluded that the merger of the health and pension plans is possible and legal. The report includes no details about how such a merger for SAG-AFTRA will be handled. However, it does state, "The plans' trustees have a legal obligation to ensure that no participants' accrued benefits will be less after the merger than it was before the merger." It's not likely the trustees will begin exploring their options of merging plans until after the unions merge. An actuary study is expected to occur at that time.A hearing related to the lawsuit has been set for March 26, and no decision is expected before then. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the member vote to approve the mergerballots were mailed last week and must be returned by March 30will be suspended. "This lawsuit is completely without merit," said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, deputy national executive director and general counsel for SAG. "The merger should and will be decided through the democratic process and the votes of our members. Lawsuits like this serve only to waste member dues and guild resources that could be far better spent. The guild fully expects the court to decline the plaintiffs' request for an injunction, allowing the members' voices to decide this issue."When the suit was originally filed last month, SAG released a statement saying, "Any suggestion that the members have not been fully and fairly informed is preposterous."In 2003, an internal memoone whose accuracy was recently cast in doubtrelated to the Mercer report was perceived as having a negative impact on the final outcome of the SAG member ratification vote. Despite unsuccessful attempts to merge in 1998 and 2003, the leadership of SAG and AFTRA say that as the industry changes and is influenced by technology and ever-growing media conglomerates, the needs of the members can be better served by a larger union with more bargaining power. "Competition will be a thing of the past because SAG-AFTRA will be the only game in town," said Mike Hodge, SAG NY division president. "It will give usmore power to negotiate the best pay, residuals, and benefits with more work under union contracts."At least 60 percent of both unions' membership has to vote yes for the referendum to pass. Dual card members have the chance to vote twice, once for SAG and once for AFTRA. With AFTRA traditionally supporting a merger and SAG voting it down both previous times, the idea appears to have gained more traction with SAG's membership this time around. Pro-merger leadership has been voted into office in the last two election cycles, signalingat least in the eyes of those electedthat the membership is behind the idea.