Published: September 14, 2008 07:35 pm         

Documents outline Greenbrier dispute

WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS — Financial documents obtained by The Register-Herald detailing The Greenbrier’s bottom line from 1999 to 2006 sheds some light on the much-publicized labor dispute between the resort and more than 1,100 union members.

The 18-page document, dated Sept. 14, 2007, and titled “The Greenbrier Business Overview,” was presented to Council of Labor Union heads during a preliminary labor negotiations meeting with resort officials, according to union official Peter Bostic, who released the document to The Register-Herald.

Bostic said Friday several copies of the document were handed out at the meeting and there was no indication from the resort that the information needed to be kept secret.

“No one asked us to sign any waivers,” Bostic said.

Former Greenbrier President Paul Ratchford was also present at the meeting, Bostic said. Ratchford was fired by CSX CEO Michael Ward four days later on Sept. 18.

Greenbrier resort officials declined comment concerning the business overview document.

In essence, the document argues although the overall luxury resort market “continues to grow rapidly,” the resort’s revenue “has been flat” and cites “major expense drivers include wage and benefits, utilities and marketing costs.”

“The Greenbrier’s service excellence and financial viability have seriously eroded since our last negotiations,” the document reads. “The Greenbrier has lost money each year since 2002. Lack of profitability makes it difficult to justify additional capital investment.”

The last agreement was signed in 2003.

The document reveals that resort “guest days” were more than 250,000 in 1999, but dropped to a low of just over 200,000 in 2004. Slight increases were made in 2005 and 2006. However, both were below 250,000.

The next page reveals the history of revenue and profits since 1999. Since 1999, the resort brought in revenue of $851.1 million, but had losses of $13.9 million. The last year the hotel was not in the red was 2002, showing $110.6 million in revenue and $5.1 million profit.

Since 2003, the document indicates, the resort has pulled in $424.2 million and produced losses of $39.4 million. The largest losses occurred in 2005 and 2006 ($15.6 million and $14.3 million) and also coincided with a large turnover of executive staff at the resort, which continued with former President Ted Kleisner’s retirement in October 2006.

The next few pages detail wage and benefit costs for the same time period and argues “wages and benefits as a percentage of revenue have steadily (and in some cases dramatically) increased.”

A graph bar indicates labor costs were 47 percent in 1999, but increased to 56 percent by 2006 as a total percentage of all revenue. Another graph bar shows employee benefit costs were $15.5 million in 1999, but steadily increased to $23.5 million in 2006.

“Of the 1,100 Greenbrier hourly employees who work less than full-time, over 600 qualify for full-time benefits,” the document reads.

For hours worked in 2006, it showed 466 employees worked under 800 hours, 630 employees worked from 800 to 1,700 hours, and 910 employees worked more than 1,700 hours.

According to the Department of Labor, the Fair Labor Standards Act does not define full-time or part-time employment, but is “generally to be determined by the employer.”

The document also argues the resort’s “health insurance costs per employee are high, compared to similar sized company benchmarks,” with employee contributions “well below benchmarks.”

The document concluded by identifying individual members of the “master agreement bargaining team” and said “the future of The Greenbrier depends upon a solid business foundation,” using these examples:

- Giving excellent service.

- Providing excellent full-time benefits to full-time employees.

- Becoming more market-based in determination of wages, benefits and work rules.

- Reaching a more market-based distribution of health care benefits and costs.

In several instances, the document stated any collective bargaining agreement must be consistent “with (the resort’s) core values, based on sound business principles and providing a fair day’s work for a fair day’s principles.”

— E-mail: cgiggenbach@register-herald.com