IP RECOMMENDATION TECHNICAL UNIT MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD IMPASSE PANEL

Transcription

1 MICHIGAN CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD IMPASSE PANEL IP IMPASSE PANEL RECOMMENDATION for the TECHNICAL UNIT CONTRACT TERM January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015 November 27, 2013

2 IP Impasse Panel Recommendation (Technical) Page 2 of 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION... 2 B. IMPASSE ISSUES... 2 C. IMPASSE PANEL CRITERIA... 3 D. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Article 24 Compensation Article 30 Duration and Termination of Agreement LOU 16 Assignment and Transfer LOU 27 Miscellaneous Benefits and Expense Reimbursement...6 E. OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT... 6 F. SUMMARY... 7 A. INTRODUCTION Civil Service Commission Rule provides for resolution of impasses between parties negotiating collective bargaining agreements. In September 2013, requests for impasse panel assistance were made with respect to the Technical Unit by the Service Employees International Union Local 517M (Union) and the Office of the State Employer (OSE). In SPDOC 13-07, the state personnel director established a schedule to allow impasse panel assistance and commission review before the current contracts expire. In addition to the economic and other common issues discussed in IP , the parties certified impasse on additional provisions. The parties have submitted proposed language, position statements, and exhibits regarding these matters. The parties also have submitted language for the remaining provisions in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) where tentative agreement was reached. An impasse hearing was held on November 15, Both parties had the opportunity to present arguments on the unit-specific provisions at impasse. The panel has considered all testimony and evidence presented in making the following recommendation. B. IMPASSE ISSUES In addition to the consolidated provisions at impasse, as discussed in IP , the parties have certified that the following provisions are at impasse: Article 24 Compensation Article 30 Duration and Termination of Agreement LOU 16 Assignment and Transfer LOU 27 Miscellaneous Benefits and Expense Reimbursement

3 IP Impasse Panel Recommendation (Technical) Page 3 of 7 C. IMPASSE PANEL CRITERIA Civil Service Rule 6-9.4(b) establishes the following potential criteria for the impasse panel to consider in making its recommendation: (1) Stipulations and agreements. (2) The interests and welfare of the public. (3) The financial condition and ability of the state. (4) Comparison of the rates of compensation and other conditions of employment of classified employees with other governmental and private sector employees. (5) Appropriate economic indicators and forecasts. (6) Total compensation, including fringe benefits, presently received by employees. (7) Such other factors that are normally taken into consideration in determining rates of compensation and other conditions of employment. In IP , the impasse panel further clarified that: At impasse, when one party requests a significant change to current language to which the other party objects, the proponent of change should present concrete evidence of the need for the change, such as inefficiencies in operations, inequitable treatment, hardships, or other convincing justifications for the change. D. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ARTICLE 24 COMPENSATION The Union proposes hazard pay for bargaining unit employees required to work in highcrime areas. A high-crime area would be one identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as one of the top-ten areas for violent crime. The Union also proposes increasing the yearly safety shoe allowance option from $125 to $150 and the biennial safety-shoe allowance option from $250 to $300. Hazard pay for high-crime areas. The OSE rejects the Union s proposal. The FBI does not publish a ranking list. In its Uniform Crime Report, the FBI cautions against using Crime in the United States to rank cities crime levels due to many variables that mold the crime in particular cities. The FBI stated that the rankings can lead to simplistic or incomplete analyses that create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and their residents. If the FBI did publish a list of high-crime areas, it would change frequently, requiring constant monitoring to ensure employees are properly compensated under the Union s proposal. The Union did not identify specifics about the calculation of qualifying hours or how additional pay would resolve hazardous conditions. The Union and OSE have already

4 IP Impasse Panel Recommendation (Technical) Page 4 of 7 agreed to three provisions within the CBA to jointly deal with concerns regarding hazardous conditions, which provide proper forums for further discussions. Safety-shoe allowance. The OSE rejects the Union s proposal. This bargaining unit already receives the highest shoe allowance of all state bargaining units; the standard allowance for safety shoes is $100 per year or $200 every two years. The Union has not provided any justification to support an increase in the allowance. Hazard pay for high crime areas. Flint and Detroit are ranked by the FBI as having the most violent crime in the United States. Some bargaining unit employees are assigned to those areas, where they working alone and are subject to violent crime. Some employees have been shot at. Even the Michigan State Police does not allow its officers in Detroit to patrol alone. The state has a practice of providing hazard pay to employees working in extremely dangerous areas. The Union s proposal is based on the objective criteria of the FBI s data, so there will not be an ongoing dispute about which areas are dangerous. Contrary to the OSE s argument that the FBI list will require constant monitoring, the list is released annually. The proposed premium has a low cost and would address the fundamental fairness of sending employees into dangerous environments. Safety-shoe allowance. Some bargaining unit employees are required to wear safety shoes on the job. The current safety shoe allowance has not changed in 12 years. The allowance has been outpaced by the increases in the cost of safety shoes. The state has long recognized that employees should not bear the cost of safety shoes required due to job hazards. The panel understands and appreciates the concerns of the Union over the dangerous environments where its members are called to work. While a pay premium may provide some compensation for these hazards, additional study and data is needed to responsibly address this problem. The OSE has referred to multiple labor-management committees existing under the collective bargaining agreement that could consider these issues, but where they apparently have never been discussed. The panel encourages the parties to explore these concerns in these committees to see if solutions particularly those that could more directly alleviate the safety concerns discussed in the Union s presentation could be developed. The panel is not convinced that the Union has demonstrated that its shoe allowance, which is already the highest in the state, is sufficiently inequitable or presenting hardships justifying a unilateral request to increase it. Accordingly, the impasse panel recommends that the commission adopt the OSE s proposal for Article 24, 3 and ARTICLE 30 DURATION AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT

5 IP Impasse Panel Recommendation (Technical) Page 5 of 7 The OSE proposes an effective date of January 1, 2014 and an expiration date of December 31, The Union proposes an effective date of January 1, 2014 and an expiration date of December 31, The OSE s brief does not address this issue. The Union s brief did not address this issue, but at the impasse hearing they indicated acceptance of a two-year contractual term. Accordingly, the impasse panel recommends that the commission adopt the OSE s proposal, which provides for a two-year term. 3. LOU 16 ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER Current LOU language provides that entry-level Technician positions filled by the Michigan Department of Transportation through formal recruitment at colleges and universities are exempt from the transfer provisions of Article 16, 5.A.3 that requires posting vacant positions not filled by existing employees. The Union proposes to end this LOU. The OSE requests to retain the LOU. Without the LOU, a vacant position could be filled by an existing employee, resulting in a vacancy at a different worksite, where the posting-and-fill process begins again. The LOU provides MDOT with the ability to tell recruits with certainty at which of 35 worksites the recruit is being hired to work. The LOU does not interfere with existing employees transfer entitlements, because it states that the remaining transfer provisions of Article 16, 5.A. must be exhausted before making any contingent offer of employment to a graduating candidate. Without the LOU, the MDOT s ability to recruit would be seriously hampered. The Union s brief does not address this issue nor was it discussed at the hearing. The LOU appears to have had a sunset provision when initially entered, but has since been repeatedly extended without extending the sunset provision. This suggests that it has become an ongoing part of the contract. The Union requested deletion of the article, but failed to provide any rationale for its request. Accordingly, the impasse panel recommends that the commission reject the Union s proposal and maintain current language.

6 IP Impasse Panel Recommendation (Technical) Page 6 of 7 4. LOU 27 MISCELLANEOUS BENEFITS AND EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT The parties discussed the requirement in Article 27 to attach the receipt for any reimbursed meal to the request for travel reimbursement for actual expenses up to the maximum reimbursable rate. The OSE proposes a pilot program to suspend the receipt-attachment requirement because travel reimbursement is still subject to departmental review. Employees would still be responsible to maintain meal receipts. The Union does not want to implement the program because its employees should not be responsible for maintaining meal receipts. The proposed pilot program was conceived by the New Solutions committee created during 2011 negotiations. The unions urged the employer to eliminate the requirement that employees attach meal receipts to travel expense reimbursement requests. Employees have always had the responsibility to maintain meal receipts. The proposed pilot program would not change that responsibility. Not requiring the employee to attach receipts would eliminate the need for the employer to maintain, track, and handle each receipt. All but two bargaining units have accepted this LOU. Not having two bargaining units involved in the process would create unnecessary difficulties. The program shifts the burden of retaining receipts from the employer to the employee. The amount of time the employer would require employees to retain the evidence is unreasonable. The Union s members travel frequently, so the pilot reflects a new burden. The pilot program arose out of a labor-management committee and has been accepted by the majority of employee unions. While the panel is sympathetic to the Union s concerns on retention burdens, it is also cognizant that having two separate receipt collection processes would eliminate efficiencies sought in and undermine the pilot program. The panel is confident that the parties can address any concerns during the term of the pilot program. Accordingly, the impasse panel recommends that the commission grant the OSE s proposal and include LOU 27 in the contract. E. OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT As part of their impasse submissions, the parties provided proposed text for portions of the collective bargaining agreement that were not at impasse. Civil service staff has reviewed the tentative agreements for provisions that would violate civil service rules on prohibited subjects of bargaining and found no such provisions. The impasse panel concurs and recommends that

7 IP Impasse Panel Recommendation (Technical) Page 7 of 7 the Civil Service Commission approve those provisions where tentative agreement was reached by the parties. The impasse panel has also made its recommendations on several issues that affected multiple bargaining units in a separate document, IP The discussion and findings of IP are adopted by reference in this recommendation. F. SUMMARY The panel s recommended text for the CBA appears at Appendix 1. This text reflects the impasse panel s recommendations on the unique issues to this bargaining unit, as outlined above, its recommendations on the issues consolidated for consideration in IP , and the tentative agreements submitted by the parties on articles not at impasse. The impasse panel recommends that the Commission adopt the text in Appendix 1 as the CBA for the Technical Unit.