FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 01/30/ :52 PM INDEX NO. E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2017 EXHIBIT G

Transcription

1 EXHIBIT G

2 HUMAN RESOURCES 675 W. Main Street 1ROCHESTER Rochester, NY fl Phone (585) Housing Authority FAX (585) December 8, 2016 Via First Class Mail, Return Receipt Requested No AFSCME 1635-F Mr. William Slocum, President 3545 Buffalo Road, Suite 8 Rochester, NY Dear Mr. Slocum: Re: Policy (ALL)- Grievance No Step 2 Response The grievance is denied. RHA has not refused to put its Union employees into the LMHF plan. The LMHF plan hai made it impossible to comply with the parties' agreement by refusing to take only RNA's Union employees into the LMHF plan and insisting that RHA's non-union employees whom you do not represent also go into the union. Tolle LMHF plan's all or nothing approach has made it impossible for RHA to fulfill the terms of the new collective bargaining agreenient that was executed and ratified by the parties because RHA has decided to keep its nonunion employees in the FLMHIT plan that it currently has. While it is true that RHA did not mention its option to keep non-union employees in FLMHIT during. negotiationa there was no obligation or need to do so. As noted above, the Union does not represent the non-union employees and, as the Union should certainly know, it is unlawful for the Union to insist on negotiating any of the terms and conditions of employment for non-union employees, including health insurance and going into the LMHF plan. It was never made clear during negotiations that LMHF plan was an all or nothing proposition. While it is true that the parties discussed putting all of RHA employees into LMHF and RHA provided data to Lawley on all RHA employees, at no time was the requirement that RITA must put its non-union employees into the LMHF plan plainly and expressly disclosed to RHA, and at no time did RHA execute any binding agreement to put its non-union employees into. LMHF. The FLMHIT plan that RHA has had for the past few years does not require all employees to be in its plan, and RHA had no reason to believe that LMHF would require all RHA employees to be in its plan either. The Tentative Agreement that was ratified by both sides applied by its terms (as it must) only to Union employees in the bargaining unit.

3 Page 2 of 2 William Slocum, President AFSCME, 1635-F RHA has told the Union on multiple occasions that it stands ready, willing and abld to the execute documents with LMHF to put its bargaining unit employees into the LMHF plan as specified in the Tentative Agreement. The LMHF plan has refused to permit this to happen. By filing and continuing to pursue this grievance the Union is committing an unlawful improper practice under the Taylor Law. RHA demands that the Union immediately withdraw both this grievance and the PERB charge it has filed concerning the same matter in case U-35349, with prejudice. Respectfully, Rashondra M. Martin Executive Personnel Administrator RMM:mla cc: Jim Hulbert, AFSCME Representative AFSCME 1635-F 4201 Buffalo Road, Suite 5 North Chili, NY

4 ROCHESTER e. Housing Authority hi Executive Offices 675 West Main Street Rochester, NY Fax December 27, 2016 Via Electronic Mail (bslocuml9(anahoo.com) and First Class Mail, Return Receipt Requested No Mr. William Slocum, President AFSCME 1635-F 3545 Buffalo Road, Suite 8 Rochester, NY Re: Policy (ALL)- Grievance No Step 3 Response Dear Mr. Slocum: The grievance is denied. RHA has not refused to put its Union employees into the LMHF plan. The LMHF plan has made it impossible to comply with the parties' agreement by refusing to take only RHA's Union employees into the LMHF plan and insisting that RHA's non-union employees whom you do not represent also go into the union. The LMHF plan's all or nothing approach has made it impossible for RHA to fulfill the terms of the new collective bargaining agreement that was executed and ratified by the parties because RHA has decided to keep its non-union employees in the FLMHIT plan that it currently has. While it is true that RHA did not mention its option to keep non-union employees in FLMHIT during negotiations there was no obligation or need to do so. As noted above, the Union does not represent the non-union employees and, as the Union should certainly know, it is unlawful for the Union to insist on negotiating any of the terms and conditions of employment for non-union employees, including health insurance and going into the LMHF plan. It was never made clear during negotiations that LMHF plan was an all or nothing proposition. While it is true that the parties discussed putting all of RHA employees into LMHF and RHA provided data to Lawley on all RHA employees, at no time was the requirement that RHA must put its non-union employees into the LMHF plan plainly and expressly disclosed to RHA, and at no time did RHA execute any binding agreement to put its non-union employees into LMHF. The FLMHIT plan that RHA has had for the past few years does not require all employees to be in its plan, and RHA had no reason to believe that LMHF would require all RHA employees to be in its plan either, The Tentative Agreement that was ratified by both sides applied by its terms (as it must) only to Union employees in the bargaining unit.

5 RHA has told the Union on multiple occasions that it stands ready, willing and able to the execute documents with LMHF to put its bargaining unit employees into the LMHF plan as specified in the Tentative Agreement. The LMHF plan has refused to permit this to happen. By filing and continuing to pursue this grievance the Union is committing an unlawful improper practice under the Taylor Law. RHA demands that the Union immediately withdraw both this grievance and the PERB charge it has filed concerning the same matter in case U-35349, with prejudice. (F A N. Hill,ecutive Director cc: Jim Hulbert, AFSCME Representative AFSCME 1635-F 4201 Buffalo Road, Suite 5 North Chili, NY Health Insurance Grievance No Step 3 Response 2