Given the number of questions and concerns that have been raised about the new Union Contract, we felt it important to take a close look at the problems. This task is complicated by the fact there are several different versions of the new contract out in public. Rather than discuss all of the discrepancies, and there are many, I will focus on some of the key differences.
First, some background information. The new contract (April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2015) is based on the current contract (April 1, 2003 - March 31, 2008). The town and the union negotiated a Tentative Agreement that was initialed by the parties on January 11, 2012. The agreements in the Tentative Agree should have been incorporated into the new contract that was signed on January 12, 2012. I have seen several copies of the new contract, all with the same dated signature page but distributed at different times, one from January 24, 2012, one on February 9, 2012, and a copy I obtained from the town office on February 10, 2012. There are differences among these copies, which I will discuss below.
As far as I can tell, some of the discrepancies have resulted from improperly transferring sections of the tentative agreement and the current contract to the new contract. There are also differences between the three copies of the final contract I referred to above.
One key problem concerns Article 24, Uniforms. The part of Article 24 that lists the items in the clothing allotment and the boot allowance was left out of the February 9th version of the contract but was added to the February 10th version as page 23. The new section takes up half a page, and the remainder of the page is blank. There is no other place in the contract where there is a large portion of blank space. In addition, the page references in the Table on Contents do not reflect the addition of the information on page 23. Articles 25, 26, and 27 are listed on page 23 when they are actually on page 24. The Table of Contents looks as if it might have been altered to account for the additional page. The page references are in a right justified column, but "22" is out of alignment with the rest of the page numbers.
I have seen two versions of the Tentative Agreement with different last pages. The copy distributed on February 9, 2012 was initialed by 5 people. The copy from February 10th has been initialed by two additional people, Selectman Jeanette Stewart and negotiator Ann-Marie Welch. It appears that the initials A.M.W have been squeezed between the date and the initials R.D., and it also appears that the initials J.I.S. are squeezed in at the bottom of the page. The hand-written date on the both pages is January 11, 2012. This seems to indicate that the Tentative Agreement was not initialed by all parties at the same time.
Another important omission concerns Article 23 - Wage Rates. The article begins by stating, "Effective April 1, 2012, wage rate schedule is provided in Appendix 1, attached..." However, there is no Appendix 1 in the February 10th version of the new contract. When I asked for Appendix 1 at the Town Hall, I was told that there is no Appendix 1. In other words, there is no wage rate schedule to be followed for paying union employees in the new contract. The rate increase does not appear to be spelled out anywhere else in the contract. The January 24th and February 9th versions both have an Appendix "A" as does the current contract.
There is a significant discrepancy concerning Article 11, Holidays. The Tentative Agreement specifies that item 5 should read the same as the current contract; however, there is no item 5 in the new contract. Item 5 should read, "When an employee works on a holiday, he/she shall receive time and one half in addition to the eight hours of holiday pay within the pay period the holiday is earned." This could mean that a union employee would not receive time and half in addition to holiday pay if he/she were required to work on a holiday.
Article 23 also specifies that wages will be increased further according to the CPI-U (Consumer Price Index of All Urban Consumers) for the Greater Boston Area plus one-percent. I was told that members of the negotiating team had requested that this be changed to more accurately reflect the economic conditions in our area, but it appears this was not done.
Article 13, Sickness and Disability, Section B in the Tentative Agreement only says, "Employees to be on disability insurance with LGC." The final contract reads the same as the current contract, which is significantly different from the tentative agreement. It contains 7 sections and does not mention LGC. I am not sure how this might affect workers on disability.
In the current contract, Article 11, Annual Vacation specifies that, "vacation will be credited on January 1 of each year." The final contract does not specify a date. When vacation is credited affects when employees can take vacation and how much vacation they can take.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the wording of the contract in regard to who is responsible for certain interactions regarding employees like requiring a doctor's certificate or approving educational reimbursement. In some places the contract specifies the Board of Selectmen, in some the Town Administrator, and in some the Hiring Authority. The problem is that some union employees work for the town and some for the Electric Department. The contract needs to make clear who is responsible. If the responsibility is split between the town and the Electric Department, the contract should reference the Hiring Authority, which would be applicable to all.
Since I am not a lawyer, I do not know what the legal ramifications of these problems are. Clearly, the negotiating team and the union are both at fault since both parties signed documents that contain so many discrepancies. But, we as townspeople are now faced with a problem since we have to vote on a Warrant Article to fund the contract, when we know the contract is flawed, and there is no salary schedule that specifies the exact amount of the raises. Furthermore, figures in the the Warrant Article may not be correct. The figures include the cost of all the positions at the Electric Department and not the the cost of the three positions that are currently filled as stated in the Warrant Article. In addition, the figures did not include the allowance for jackets. Hopefully, these issues will be resolved before the election, so we will have a clear understanding of what we are actually voting for or against. We also should also call for a in-depth review to see what went wrong with the process, to determine why there are differences among signed copies of the contract, and to identify which copy of the signed contract is correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment