OFS Bargaining Report #13

OFS Bargaining Report – Day 12

Our first order of business is that we must thank all our Members for their unwavering support behind the Union's Bargaining Team as was expressed in their overwhelming 97% vote for Strike Authorization.  The turnout was massive and the message to the Company from the Rank & File is unquestionable – give the Membership and Retirees a contract that is nothing less than respectful of the efforts, production, and return to profitability our Members have given the Company.  As Vice President Maly stated, "Our Members are ready to take whatever action necessary to assure they get a fair and reasonable contract and CWA's Strike Fund has never been stronger than today to support our OFS Members in their pursuit of a real contract."  So again, the Union's Bargaining Team extends our utmost appreciation to all our Members for their actions, support and determination.

Bargaining for Tuesday, May 23, 2006 opened with Bill Bates asking the Company if they pay for Medicare Part B for retirees.  The Company said they do not, though they do make retirees at 65 years old apply Medicare B as their primary medical coverage plan with the OFS plan becoming the secondary.  The Company reported there are currently 27 retirees 65 years old or older and 117 between the ages of 60 and 64.

Bill then passed Union counter to Article 8 – Occupational Job Classification.  Addressing the Company's first counter to the Union's original proposal in which the Company struck the majority of the Union's proposed changes to the Article, the Union put back in much of their original language, with some changes, additions and deletions.  The Union explained to the Company how important it is to the Union that we are a true partner in any decisions resulting in changes to Job Descriptions; that we can't just settle for being told by the Company what they will do regarding our Members' Job Descriptions.

The Union included language that would not allow any changes to be implemented if the Union and Company disagreed on any proposed change until after the resolve of the grievance and/or arbitration process on the matter.  The Company asked whether the grievance process proposal would prevent any changes until after the completion of a grievance or arbitration.  The Union replied that was true, and the reason for the Union's demands on grievances and arbitrations is because the system is so seriously broken today that the Union needs language that will address the process, and we believe these proposals are a start in the right direction to repair the process.

We explained to the Company that we did take some of their concerns into consideration and included language where no party could unreasonably delay the implementation of any proposed amendment to Job Descriptions.  The Union also reinserted language for our Members so that, if they are wrongly paid while occupying any Job Description, the Company would be responsible for full retroactive back pay for up to 52 weeks immediately proceeding the date of Job Description change.  The Union also wants the right to be able to arbitrate any Job Description change, which the current contract does not allow, and the Company struck such arbitration language from the Union's first proposal.  The Union reinserted the language in their counter.

Under the Journeyman Trades Plan of the Article, the Union wants the Labor/Management Trades Committee to be an integral part of Trade training decisions and actions, as is supposed to be a part of the description of the Trades Committee responsibilities.  The Union also wants language making it clear that, if at any time a Trades Associate does work in another trades occupation other than their own, such work will be "incidental" in nature.  And if any Product Associate does any trades work under "routine non-technical duties", such work will be "minimal in nature".  The Union explained to the Company that they are not considering anything other than the removal of the "Control Rate" from the wage schedule for Trade Associates and, therefore, again struck all language referring to such Control Rate.  The Union also, again, struck any language that would restrict an Arbitrator from being able to rule on challenges related to the Journeyman Trades Plan.

The Union passed their counter to Article 10 – Hours of Work.  The Union's first proposed change to this article was to remove language that allows the Company to institute changes to work schedules prior to agreement between the Union and the Company or the completion of the grievance and/or arbitration process.  The Union also reinserted language that allows for Minimal Pay Allowance in the case of work on Day In Lieu of Saturday and Day In Lieu of Sunday.

The Union passed their counter to Article 15 – Pay Treatment for Absences.  The Union reinserted their proposal for grandparents-in-law for bereavement pay, and also proposed language to allow for up to three unpaid days off for the bereavement of "more distant relatives" where such time cannot be applied to any Company attendance policy.

For jury and court attendance the Union reinserted consideration for "defendants" but agreed to strike "plaintiffs".  The Union also proposed to reinstate the terms to give night tour employees on jury duty the option either to change their scheduled shift to days during the period of time they serve on a jury or to take the workday preceding or workday following court attendance.

Under Sick Days, the Union is again insisting that none of the 10 paid sick days can be charged under any Company attendance policy.

The Union also reinserted language to allow for in-late or absences due to inclement weather so that such time cannot be charged under any Company attendance policy.

Bill next passed the Union's proposal for Card Check Agreement.  Bill explained to the Company that, because of their obvious anti-union actions related to recent organizing actions, the Union can settle on nothing less than a Card Check Agreement.  Card Check would allow OFS employees to organize when they have 50% + 1 of the employees sign Union recognition cards.

The Company then responded to Union proposal for Article 14 – Excused Workdays.  The Company rejected the Union's proposal to increase Excused Workdays from 4 days to 5 days and the Union's proposal for incremental issue of Excused Workdays from 2 hours to 1 hour.  When asked why the Company opposed the incremental issue of 1 hour, the Company replied that it was because of the additional administrative costs.  Bill advised the Company their claim of increased administrative costs was weak at best.  The Company also responded that they didn't see any benefit to the Company for the change.  Bill advised the Company the benefit is that the Company would get more hours of productivity on days the employee is absent 1 hour as opposed to 2 hours; but more importantly, it allows employees to be able to better manage their lives.

The Company passed their counter to Article 11 – Premium Payments.  The Company is moving in the right direction on this Article but still needs some work.  The Company did agree to give some recognition to the Joint Overtime Committee, but still severely limited the Overtime Committees' ability to act.  The most serious action by the Company is they still want the ability to charge overtime absences against the Company's attendance policy, even though the Joint Overtime Committee's agreed-upon policy addresses all above concerns.  The Company did agree with Union proposal to language that pays employees overtime for any hours worked outside their scheduled daily tour, but refused to allow for travel time pay under Call-In Pay conditions.

The Company passed their counter to Article 24 – Shutdown Scheduling.  The Company's proposal will limit the number of Scheduled Shutdowns to three per year, where in the current contract it is four.  And the Company agreed to eliminate the required use of one week's vacation for shutdowns.  The Company's proposal did include language where "volunteers will be sought" for additional unscheduled shutdowns.  But the Company's language doesn't clarify what Members will be volunteering for – Will they be volunteering to go out on the shutdown, as was the first proposal from the Union; will they be volunteering to remain and work; or will they be volunteering to join the military?  The Company's language leaves that question wide open.  But we do applaud the Company for attempting to move in the right direction in this proposal – eliminating the use of vacation time is a significant advancement.

The Company passed their counter to Article 12 – Vacations.  Again the Company is making movement in the right direction with their counter, but they still fall somewhat short of fair and reasonable.

The Company agreed to adjust the requirement for qualifying for 3 weeks vacation from seven to five years but rejected all other adjustments.

The Company agreed to remove the language requiring that one week vacation be used for shutdowns.  The Company rejected the Union's proposal to allow all carry over vacation time to be used through December 31 of the next calendar year.  The problem the Union has with this is that it includes all carry over vacation time, whether the Member chose to carry it over or the Company forced the Member to carry it over.  The Union has a serious problem with the Company putting time limits on use when the carry over time was forced on them by the Company.  The Company rejected the Union's proposal for incremental use of vacation time in one (1) hour segments.  The Company agreed to the Union proposal to include "Shift Differential" in the paragraph for Computation of Vacation Pay.

The Company passed their counter to Article 13 – Holidays.  This proposal still needs some serious adjustments.  The Company rejected the Union proposal that no designated Holiday can be re-designated into the following calendar year.  The Union has serious problems with that issue.  The Company rejected the Union proposal that all employees who receive pay for part of the day before or the day after the holiday will receive holiday pay regardless of whether they are active on roll or not.  Again, this is a serious concern to the Union.  The Company did agree to include the "Floating Holiday" in the list of "recognized holidays".

The Union advised the Company they would take all their counters under advisement.

The Company distributed information charts comparing Defined Pension Accounts to Cash Balance Accounts.  The Company went through the comparisons and explained them in detail to the Union.  The Company's information sharing did not include a proposal, just explanations on the comparisons.

The next bargaining meeting will be Wednesday, May 24, 2006.