Union LOA

[rebeccainak]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Alaska

Greetings, my question is about an LOA my union signed without contacting or in any way asking memebrship about it. The LOA created new "Watch Commander"positions or COIV/LT.

These new positions are an 84 hr week on week off postion. I have been an LT since 2009 and paid dues to this union, and via or contract have always been restricted to a 37.5 hour week- but generally work much more and get "comp" time (ha what a joke). We are also OT inelligable.


Anyway, the union signed this LOA in secret with the department administration, and we had no knowledge of it until the announcemnt came out promoting 4 Sgt.'S to LT or "Watch Commanders". The position description and range and step are the same. Everything is the same, except for the fact that these new LT's who have never paid a dime in dues are suddenly working a much more desirable shift and making about 1 K more a month. They are also OT elligable. Giving them the potential to make much much more.


I am the number one senior LT in the state and complained to my union and they say they can do nothing about it. I would be more more than happy if they would give us a Monday - Friday 42 hr week and made us OT elligable. That would be a small loss per month as we would not recieve shift differential, but I'm not really concerned about that.

Some advice would be appreciated as to how we can make our union work for it's members, rather than against us. We feel this is very unfair.

 

[CdwJava]

Sad to say, and having been in a union that sold out the membership in exchange for golden parachutes (pension spikes) for near term retirees (which included some on the Board), unless the actions violated the law, the union is your representative body and their contract with your employer (it sounds as if that's the state) is likely binding.

You might want to take a look at the association's bylaws and determine if and how these matters are resolved. Is any modification to the MOU or a sideletter required to go to a vote of the membership? If so, ask them why it did not? You might then have to get with some of your fellow employees and consult legal counsel on the possibility of taking action against your association ... an ugly place to be.

You said that your union "signed" this agreement, but then said that they told you they could "do nothing about it" when you asked them. How is that? WHY is that? Did the state come in and say they would be adding these positions for their own reasons? If so, then this may be an administration prerogative and not subject to union agreement at all. If your union agreed to this, certainly they must be able to answer the question as to WHY they did so!

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I would say you need to file a grievance, likely based on seniority, if you feel it was incorrect. Creating the positions is likely okay. Not bidding them is questionable.

 

[CdwJava]

I would say you need to file a grievance, likely based on seniority, if you feel it was incorrect. Creating the positions is likely okay. Not bidding them is questionable.

A grievance cannot be based on a feeling that something is wrong or unfair, but that it violated some element of the MOU. Since the association apparently signed this deal, arguably, it is not a grievable issue and her complaint is with her association. If this was enacted unilaterally by the state, then the union (and PMrebeccainak) may have some cause to grieve the matter. Assuming, of course, that the MOU or policy prohibits the action they took.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

He needs to refer to the contract they are working under as well. Successful grievances are not based on what is in an MOU as much as what is not. They intentionally word them around contracts so even if you have grievance recourse, it does not appear there is.

A grievance cannot be based on a feeling that something is wrong or unfair, but that it violated some element of the MOU. Since the association apparently signed this deal, arguably, it is not a grievable issue and her complaint is with her association. If this was enacted unilaterally by the state, then the union (and PMrebeccainak) may have some cause to grieve the matter. Assuming, of course, that the MOU or policy prohibits the action they took.

 

[CdwJava]

He needs to refer to the contract they are working under as well. Successful grievances are not based on what is in an MOU as much as what is not. They intentionally word them around contracts so even if you have grievance recourse, it does not appear there is.

That's the problem! If the matter is not a subject covered under the MOU, it becomes difficult to grieve. I've dealt with more than a few in my day (none for me personally, but all in my role as union thug ... i.e. union pres.), and each time it tells us what we need to insert into the NEXT MOU because it was lacking in the current one. As one lawyer referred to it, it can sometimes be a matter of correct word-smithing ... i.e. articulation. The problem is, if the grievance is denied, does the employee or the association have the thousands of dollars - and nerve - it might take to take the issue to the next step?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I have seen some really interesting MOU based grievances. Actually, I filed one myself. I dropped it because my goal was to try for a white paper agreement, not destroy the seniority of hundreds of brothers.

 

[JennK2009]

Try this site for some ideas and thoughts. Good luck

http://aud2.uniondemocracy.org/

 

[rebeccainak]

Thanks for your help everyone- had an internet outage this weekend and wasn't able to look at this.

Our union has basicly told us they will not file a grievance or do much of anything about the situation. They did admit that they were "hasty" in signing the LOA and that they would speak with us if anything similar came up in the future.

One of the issues is we are the only uniformed branch of this union. Out of about 3000 members there are only 17 of us (LT's), a small minority that gets treated as the red headed step children. The regular CO's union is far far better than ours. But as we are classified as Supervisors, we are forced to belong to the Supervisors union.

One thing that was offered to us was possible transfers to institutions with "watch commander" openings. Alaska is a huge state, and the closest other institution that has a high turnover is 80 miles away! We are very spread out and many of our facilities aren't even on the road system.