OFS Bargaining Report #14

OFS Bargaining Report – Day 13

Bargaining on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 opened with Bill Bates asking some clarifying questions on the Company's Pension/Cash Balance Account proposal.  Bill advised the Company the Union has two new proposals.

The Company stated they had some clarifying information on questions raised about Article 13 – Holidays.  The Company informed the Union their interpretation of the pay allowance for holidays is when an employee receives pay the day before or the day after the holiday, and is active on roll the day of the holiday.

Bill asked if it was the Company's interpretation then that, if an employee leaves active roll the day before the holiday, that employee wouldn't qualify for holiday pay.  The Company said that was correct.

Bill responded that the Union understands the Company's position but, for the record, the Union disagrees with the Company's interpretation.

The Company then passed an updated counter to Article 13 – Holidays.  The only changes made to the newest counter were the changes the Company advised the Union they would be making during yesterday's meeting.  The Union still has a concern about the Company's interpretation of the qualification for holiday payments.  The Union took the Company's counter under advisement.

The Company next passed their counter to Article 3 – Defined Terms.  The Company's counter included the inclusion of Con-Ops in the definitions for Day In Lieu of Saturday and Day In Lieu of Sunday; with the Company's previous agreement to Union language in Defined Terms, we were now able to TA Article 3.

Bill thanked the Company for making it possible to TA our second Article, but reminded the Company we still have a long way to go before the expiration of the contract.

The Union passed Union proposal for Article 17 – Termination Allowances.  The Union's first proposed change is to include all employees who have been laid off from the Company and recalled or rehired, and bridge their previous service in the first (higher payoff level) Termination Allowance chart in case of future layoffs.  The Union's next proposed change was to include "Shift Differential" in the calculation of Termination Allowance.  The Union proposed language that would count all, weekly installment, time paid, other than lump sum payments, towards Net Credit Service adjustments for all benefits, including movement-of-personnel and forced adjustments.

The Union's next proposed change was to add a Lump Sum Payment to Termination Allowance payments.

Under Optional Termination Pay, the Union proposed that the Company will offer it in a way to resolve a surplus condition, and employees who take that option will have recall rights.  The Union's final proposal was to increase Alliance funding under Termination Allowance from $2,500 to $5,000.

The Union passed Union proposal for Article 18 – Facility Closing Program.  The Union advised the Company our proposal on Facility Closing Program is an effort to prevent any future represented plant closings – because the one thing Unions hate more than most actions are plant closings.

Our first proposed change to the Article was to include a $50,000 lump sum payment to all Represented Employees with a year or more service, in addition to Termination Allowance, in the case of a plant closing.

We proposed increasing relocation allowance to a minimum of $3,000 up to $10,000.

The Union proposed increasing paid days for "house hunting" to 5 business days and increasing the amount of paid days for actual relocating to 10 business days.

The Company's first reaction to our proposal was to ask how our conscience could allow us to demand such high costs to "The Corporation" and threaten the bottom line of the company with such an outrageous payoff demand.  The Company had the arrogance to suggest our ultimate concern should be for the survival of the company, even if they have to close facilities; that even with the closing of a facility the company must still be able to survive.

Bill advised the Company that the intent of the proposal is to make the Company seriously consider what facilities they might close and what facilities would remain open.  He advised the Company that, if it is more costly to close a represented plant than a non-represented plant, then the chances are the non-union plants would go first, and that is certainly our intent here.  He advised the Company that we are not interested in the Company's bottom line when they are intent on ripping all our jobs out of our lives and our communities.

The Company then suggested to Bill that the Union should split the costs proposed in Article 18.  Bill shocked the Company by agreeing to their "proposal" with the stipulation that the Union has a 50% say in the decision-making process for facility closings.  At that time one of the Company's bargaining team members said "okay" and Bill asked him if that was a proposal; before he could answer, another Company bargaining team member jumped in and said, "On the record, that is not a proposal but just a statement".  Bill smiled at them and said "okay".

Next bargaining meeting will be Thursday, May 25, 2006.