ODOT Coalition Bargaining Report #4

On Monday, April 6th our Union’s Coalition Bargaining Team met and continued negotiations with the States ODOT Coalition Team. The Union was represented by 24 members from DMV, ODFW, ODF, OPRD, ODOT and Troy Barnard and Lisa Donoho from SEIU. Management was represented by 10 agency managers and Tom Perry from DAS.

Management started the evening off by putting several counter proposals across the table. While some of the proposals were met with praise, many others fell short and left our bargaining team eager to push on.

The first item discussed was Article 10.3ABE. Management proposed current language because they asserted the Union’s proposal would draw multiple employees away from current crews. They claimed it was SEIU’s problem that we do not have enough stewards. They missed the point that this proposal was actually intended to allow large crews in ODOT and Parks to have two stewards rather than one.

They also proposed current language for Article 32.3 where the Union is trying to get a list posted for overtime to ensure it is being spread as equally as is feasible.

Management was not ready to put a counter proposal on 33.3A yet, but did indicate a willingness to accept some of the suggestions in the Union proposal. It also seemed likely this would be included in a package proposal at a later date. They also were not ready to propose on Article 58.3.

The first paper proposal of the night was on Article 36.3AC. The first significant omission was any real change to the Forestry language around non-commercial travel rate. Not only did they not accept the Union’s proposal to expand the situations where the non-commercial travel rate is paid, they seemed to interpret the current language as a penalty payment for when ODF management forgot to bring any gear. There was much disagreement on this issue and our bargaining delegates were miffed by Managements recollection of the intent from two years prior. Tom Perry promised to provide his notes from the prior negotiations.

Also in Article 36.3AC management accepted the Union’s proposal for section 4 that is housekeeping language that eliminates the old rate language. Management did not understand the Union proposal to bring the definition of official station into line with current practice so they proposed to leave it broken. In section 6 they did not accept the Union proposal but did add a piece that appears to be clarifying language for the DMV folks. Lastly in 36.3AC they accepted the Union proposal to strikethrough the listed classifications and have it tied to those listed in Article 33.3A.

On the Article 37.3E, Management chose not to accept the Union proposal. This led to a lot of discussion in the Union caucus and the ODFW delegates are working on a plan to move forward.

Management proposed current language on 45.3. They asserted that there was not a problem.

Their proposal on 66.3 accepted the Union ideas to eliminate the Phipps Nursery language and to add Forestry to language that allows seasonal to carry over vacation time over from season to season in certain circumstances. This was a priority for Forestry and they were glad to see this accomplished. Management did not accept the Union’s proposal to reduce the number of day’s management has to either accept or reschedule vacation requests. The Union put a counter proposal across the table after caucus on this that would move the number of days from 15 days to 7. Our bargaining team felt this would be a victory on this issue if accepted.

On Article 90.3E Management responded with a proposal that accepts parts of the Union proposal that would address lunch periods being near the middle of a daily work shift and also notices for out of town travel. The other pieces of the proposal were not accepted and there was a lengthy discussion about whether the Union delegates had convinced Management of a problem. Eric Ollerenshaw, Doug Case, Joe Sheahan and others explained there was in fact a problem and shared some anecdotes with them to help them understand. There appears to be a lot of work to do on this one and we will need to get good data together to demonstrate the need.

The next proposal they spoke to was their counter proposal for Article 121.3. They accepted our “to promote career development” language in section 1, but declined to accept our strikethrough of job-related. There was some discussion about whether adding the new language gave members the ability to get trainings for positions they hoped to promote to. Tom Perry said he could interpret it that way, but he could not speak for others. This will need to be clarified during the next discussion on this article. Another piece of our proposal was changes in section 3 that management did not accept. They did accept a part of our proposal that would allow for some rotational opportunities to be posted 14 days in advance.

On Article 122.3AB we scored a significant piece of movement when management accepted the Union idea to make seasonal and part time Parks workers eligible for the boot reimbursement. The other movement on this article was their accepting of machinists and auto techs to be added to the prescription safety glass reimbursement provision.

The last counter proposal they put across the table was on the work capacity test for Forestry workers. They did not accept our proposal to shift the cost burden for exemptions from the employee to the employer. Also, they proposed this letter of agreement be integrated into the contract in a new Article 101.3C. This letter of agreement has caused a lot of frustration because of the fairness issues involved.

Overall there were some movements to be excited about and some we will have to keep working on to achieve movement. It did give us a better idea of what we are in for over the next couple months. Getting the Parks boots language movement, and the movement on seasonal vacation language for Forestry are examples of what we can achieve when we are persistent. The barriers we face on the tent language for Forestry and our scheduling changes for ODFW are priorities we will have to fight for. We need members to attend bargaining to support each other and to show Management these are important issues.

Please join us at the next bargaining session April 20th and help us negotiate coalition language we can be proud of. The next session we will put some counter proposals back across the table and we should be receiving a package proposal on all the Article 122’s as well as 40.3.

Rather than meeting at the Union hall like we have previously done, we will be meeting at the ODOT HR building at 5:30 for dinner and meeting and then start bargaining at 6:30. The address is 2775 19th St SE, Salem, Oregon. If you have any questions or would like to attend please contact Troy Barnard at 503-830-1201 or barnardt@opeuseiu.org.