Workers at Douglas Reject Contract but Will Remain on Job : Labor: Action marks second time in two months the same offer was turned down. Local union representatives have had a longstanding fight with national leaders.

A labor dispute that has been exacerbated by union politics was prolonged Thursday when workers at Douglas Aircraft in Long Beach strongly voted down a new contract that would cover 20,000 employees.

It was the second time in two months that Douglas workers rejected the same contract offer--even though union bargainers and management had endorsed it both times.

In voting held during a 24-hour period at more than a dozen polling places inside the aircraft assembly facility, 70% of 15,600 workers who cast ballots voted against ratification. The proposed contract lost by an even greater margin on March 24.

There was no immediate impact on the operations of Douglas, a division of McDonnell Douglas Corp. Local 148 of the United Auto Workers, which represents the employees, has said it would continue working under the expired contract rather than strike.

However the defeat illustrated again the wide gap between national representatives of the UAW and both the leaders and rank-and-file members of Local 148.

The local--one of the largest of any union in Southern California--has feuded with the UAW national office for two decades. Often the arguments boil down to Local 148’s belief that the UAW leadership, committed to a philosophy of labor-management cooperation, is too cozy with management.

This time the fight is over whether national vice presidents of the UAW, who participated in the Douglas negotiations, pushed bargaining representatives from Local 148 into accepting contract concessions.

The four-year tentative agreement included raises totaling 14% and a one-year lump-sum payment adding another 4%. But the most controversial elements involved scheduling and health benefits.

Douglas proposed--and union negotiators accepted--an alternative workweek in which no overtime would be paid for weekend work. Participation by workers would be voluntary.

The contract also called for some workers who retire after 1993 to begin paying a portion of their health benefits. Companies are under increasing pressure to introduce this “cost sharing” because of new federal accounting regulations. For the first time, accounting documents must include anticipated retirement benefits as company financial obligations. For some companies, the projected liabilities of retirees’ medical plans can exceed the firm’s net worth.

The president of Local 148, Richard Rios, spoke against the contract prior to the first vote, even though he had privately agreed to the tentative settlement, according to a federal mediator.

Rios and Douglas agreed to a second vote. This time, Rios pledged that he would publicly recommend ratification. However, he told the company in an April 11 letter that even with his recommendation “the membership will not ratify this proposal . . . (because of) the company’s insistence on concessions.”

A spokesman for Douglas said Thursday that “we’re disappointed . . . we are trying to understand why the vote went the way it did.” A spokesman for Rios said the union hoped to schedule new negotiations with Douglas to achieve a modified contract offer. A spokesman for the UAW’s national office in Detroit said the union has no comment on whether the split between Local 148 and national union leaders will be resolved.