– By Alisa Huckaby
Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 38 (Mandatory Subjects), WFSE requested negotiations (“demand to bargain”) for proposed new policies and revision of existing policies. The negotiations occurred on September 18.
Attending the negotiations representing Ecology CBA members were: Debbie Brookman (Washington Federation of State Employees), Pete Kmet (HQ), Norm Peck (Central Regional Office), and Alisa Huckaby (Richland Field Office).
Policy 11-10 (Operating Ecology Vehicles): WITHDRAWN - The negotiating team requested that if/when policies referenced directives, and those directives were changed (such as the requirement to fill the gas tank every time you use a vehicle), that those directives be considered part of the policy revision and therefore negotiated with the bargaining unit. The negotiating team identified many directive requirements that were not feasible for safety and cost reasons. Ecology management agreed to not implement this proposed policy/directive revision and will provide a new policy/directive revision notification to the union.
Policy 1-50 (Layoff): WITHDRAWN. Ecology management withdrew the language that included represented employees under this policy. Given this agreement, the new policy would have no impact on our members (i.e., represented employees will follow the CBA when layoffs are implemented).
Policy 1-28 (Security Program): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The revised policy requires members to turn in identification and access badges during “extended absences.” Ecology management provided explanation and application of “extended absence.” “Extended absence” is intended to mean an approved leave without pay (e.g., leaving the country for several months or on home assignment due to investigation). Furthermore, “extended absence” is not intended to be applied when someone is on leave under the Family Medical Leave Act or on maternity/paternity leave. Ecology management explained they will consider a member’s “extended absence” on a case-by-case basis. If Ecology managers apply “extended absence” requirements in an abusive or harassing manner, Human Resources will work with the union to resolve it. Agreement was reached on the “extended absence” term and its intended application for this policy.
Policy 5-54 (Training): AMENDED AT OUR REQUEST. The negotiating team expressed concern with the frequency (i.e., too repetitive for value) of some of the required trainings. In addition, concern was expressed about some manager’s interpretations of “highly recommended” or “recommended” as “required.” The negotiating team promoted consideration of training costs and impacts to employees’ ability to get work done when managers send employees to repetitive or unnecessary training sessions. Ecology management agreed the policy’s training matrix could be clarified (e.g., “highly recommended” areas that are blank will be removed from the matrix). Ecology management also explained that all training costs are being evaluated as this was a commitment made during the Layoff negotiations. An example of a training improvement is the shorter version of the Ethics training (2 versus 4 hours). Ecology management anticipated revision and updates to the training policy within the next 6 months. Agreement was reached to have on-going discussion about training issues via the Union Management Communications Committee (UMCC) meetings.
Policy 1-32 (Preventing Conflicts of Interest Based on Familial or Personal Relationships): The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the proposed new policy and explained the edited version was an attempt to incorporate criteria communicated by Jay Manning in an email to Ecology managers. Note: the red-line/strike-out language of the draft policy would only apply to Ecology managers, would not allow employees with familial relations with the Program Manager to work in the same program, and would require management’s disclosure of familial relationships to Ecology Human Resources. The negotiating team explained that the draft policy did not appear to address the original audit findings that it was intended to address and that Ecology member’s fundamental issue is fairness in the workplace. The negotiating team expressed concern that the draft policy only addresses the supervisor/employee relationship and not the relationship between the line employee and the Program Manager. Agreement was reached that the policy should not prevent family members from being hired into the agency. The negotiating team communicated the sensitivity associated with existing familial relationships in the work place and the belief that the policy provided a mechanism for appropriate exceptions via the Director’s discretion and documentation. After much discussion, the negotiating team was amenable to “grandfathering” in of existing situations (including disclosure) with clear restrictions on future hiring. Ecology management were unable to agree to the negotiating team’s proposal without first discussing the proposed changes to the draft policy with Ecology’s Executive Management Team.
Policy 11-17 (Reserving and Using Ecology Facilities): INTERPRETATION CLARIFIED. The negotiating team requested clarification of the policy regarding the union’s right to use Ecology Headquarter building facilities. Ecology management explained that the revised policy is not intended to restrict the Union from use of rooms (other than the auditorium). Amy Heller further explained that it is permissible for the Union to use Ecology Headquarter conference rooms S-16 & S-17 near the cafeteria.
Policy 1-76 (Suspending Operations): UNDER FURTHER CONSIDERATION. The negotiating team provided a red-line/strike-out version of the revised policy. However, the Labor Relations Office’s representative stated his opinion that this negotiation session could only “bargain” over the items in the policy that have been changed. Although the negotiating team did not have the benefit of knowing the proposed revisions of the policy (due to a red-line/strike-out version not having been provided by Ecology management), the proposed changes to this policy were minimal and included the deletion of a paragraph referencing Policy 1-75 (leave policy that wasn’t finalized) and minor clean-up changes. Because the major revisions to this policy are still under development (by Ecology’s Carol Fleskes), the Ecology negotiating team agreed to hold off on negotiation of revisions to this policy until the significantly revised policy is available. The Ecology negotiating team requested that Carol Fleskes be provided our red-line/strike-out version of the policy for her consideration as she revises the existing policy.
UPDATE: In the recent UMCC meeting Polly Zehm said she would be leaving Policy 1-76 as is, but would broaden her decision making criteria for building closure. She agreed to have this new criteria posted in Inside Ecology so that everyone can read it. Significant movement was made on this issue. Thank you to the membership for making your views known about last winter’s experience! ■
No comments:
Post a Comment