The Union-Management Communications Committee met on April 21, 2009. Attending for management were Jay Manning, Polly Zehm, Chris Parsons, Pat McLain, Amy Heller, Corrina McElfish, and Pam Durham. Employees were represented by Paul Pickett (Chair, HQ), Roger Johnson (CRO), Rebekah Padgett (NWRO), Alisa Huckaby (RO), Shara Trantrum (ERO), Kerry Graber (SWRO), and Barry Wenger (BFO – small offices). Debbie Brookman attended as staff representative for WFSE.
Top of the agenda were the agency’s budget problems.
Jay described the scene at the legislature, and union members thanked Jay for management’s level of effort in communicating with employees. Then Pat provided a detailed overview of management’s plans to respond to the budget when passed. Much of the complexities of this process – the many job classes, programs, job duties, and funding sources – were presented (much as you probably heard at the All-Hands Meeting on May 5, although in more detail.) Alisa expressed the desire of union members for a process that takes advantage of as many opportunities as possible while also being fair and equitable.
Paul explained some of the frustrations with the Water Quality Program RIF process in 2008. In particular, union members were not involved in decisions made prior to the RIF, and then were caught “flat-footed” with a management proposal for RIFs with little advance notice. He explained that the union was planning to assemble a negotiating team in advance so they were ready to negotiate RIF impacts if needed, and asked if it were possible to have more discussions in the pre-RIF process so we could contribute to the best possible outcome.
Polly expressed a willingness to involve the union in discussions prior to a formal RIF, if needed. Amy emphasized the need for a clear line between pre-layoff discussions and negotiations after a formal notice of layoff. Union members agreed that any actions prior to a formal RIF would be communication only, possibly as a subcommittee of the UMCC, while the union may propose to have the same team serve as the negotiating team should the formal RIF be needed.
Alisa asked about the information she had requested in February regarding the number of managers and how many employees they manage. Amy said that due to workload issues the analysis wasn’t completed. (It has since been provided to the UMCC.) Alisa expressed the union’s desire to see any budget cuts play out equitably for both represented employees and managers. Polly responded that management span of control would be reviewed in the light of position cuts, and small units questioned if they didn’t make sense. She also noted that a manager may have reversion rights to a represented position if they are cut, so that had to be factored in as well.
The UMCC discussed the vacancies shown on EPIC, and management assured employees that the positions were being reviewed and any truly “dead” positions would be abolished. However, positions whose funding was still possible would be retained. Chris explained that this “scrubbing” process was ongoing and should be completed soon. Employees asked that management make every effort to advertise new hirings, such as those from federal stimulus money, widely in the agency.
Management asked union members what they thought about voluntary leave without pay or furloughs.
Kerry said that some employees appear to want this opportunity, but only if it helps preserve jobs for their fellow employees, not for things like management bonuses or new cars. Polly and Chris explained the challenges with a voluntary furlough program and that it may be very difficult to implement in an agency with as many different duties and funding sources as Ecology.
At this point (late in the meeting) the topic switched to the use of meeting rooms at HQ/SWRO for union meeting. Paul noted that agency policy didn’t allow the use of any room for a union meeting that held more than 15 people, except the cafeteria which has impossible acoustics. He mentioned the problems last year with management resistance to a proposed union barbecue on the cafeteria patio and the visit by legislators to the building. Union members would like the policy modified, or at least clarified. Management’s interpretation of the current policy does not seem fair, especially considering the hundreds of members in the building, including SWRO staff, and the availability of larger rooms in the other Regions.
Management responded that the dining meeting rooms were available (R1S-16/17) and that they would look into whether the training rooms could be made available as well. Chris said that he didn’t see the need for a change in the policy, and that they would be open to considering our requests for larger rooms on a case-by-case basis. Union UMCC members view this as a significant relaxing of the stance taken by management historically.
Other issues discussed briefly near the end of the meeting:
- Relatives in reporting relationships. Management is working on a policy on this issue. Union members suggested reviewing policies in place at other agencies. However, we recognize that some agencies have draconian policies, and want a balanced approach. Our values are privacy, fairness, and not having an appearance of unfairness, and starting from those values is the best approach.
- Inclement weather. Carol Fleskes is continuing with her “hot wash” of the December storms. Polly will report to the UMCC in June.
- Clerical Class Study. Union members have been trying to find out the outcomes for quite some time. Amy and Pam offered to create a report and send it to Debbie, or meet with Debbie and a UMCC employee member.
- Whistleblower Training. Union members have been hoping for some training on the new provisions passed in the 2008 legislature. Chris said that he is not planning any training, but information is available at the State Auditor’s website. Kerry suggested that this might be a topic for an employee forum.
- Government Reform UMCC Subcommittee. The subcommittee has been meeting and working on a wiki or SharePoint site for employee input. It should roll out in May with a joint email from Jay and subcommittee Chair Guy Hoyle-Dodson. (See article elsewhere in this bulletin.)
No comments:
Post a Comment