After long and careful consideration, the MSO bargaining team decided to be the bigger party and move forward with the MSO-MNEA bargaining agreement by going ahead and adding end dates to the agreed to items.  We figured that we would be back at the table in the Spring and could deal with any items that we had issues with at that time.  We couldn't see where there was going to be any different outcome, even if we met with the Mediator in September.  We have withdrawn the ULP with the NLRB as well.

Missouri NEA Preaches and Teaches Interest Based Bargaining, But Doesn’t Trust It To Work For Them!

A federal mediator has been called in to resolve impasse between Missouri Staff Organization (MSO) and Missouri  NEA (MNEA).  At a recent bargaining session between the two parties, agreement was reached.  However, the next day, MNEA tried to put a one year limit on the agreed-to items.  When MSO reminded them that the two parties would be back at the bargaining table next spring, MNEA Executive Director, Peggy Cochran, stated something to the effect of, “What if MSO wouldn’t agree to deal with it?”

 

What kind of IBB does she think is going on here?  If one party has an interest in changing something, the other party has to deal with it.  Sometimes one party will not get exactly what they originally wanted, but usually they come to a compromise that both parties can live with.  If agreement is not reached, then impasse can be declared and a federal mediator is called in.

 

So, why doesn’t MNEA trust the process?  If what we agreed to at the table is not working, we can revisit it in the Spring.  However, putting time limits that were NOT discussed at the bargaining table is unacceptable.  MNEA should have some faith that the bargaining process will deal with whatever issues may arise.  This just appears to be them pitching a fit because they are not getting their way – and they are worried they won’t get their way in the future.  MSO is frustrated over MNEA’s regressive bargaining behavior and believes MNEA is being hypocritical.

 

An Unfair Labor Practice has also been filed with the National Labor Relations Board.

MPSO Bargaining Continuing Jan 4.

MPSO Bargaining continuing on January 4. Update to follow.

March Update - RIF's, Grievances and Concerns

Enough employees took the voluntary severance package, that MNEA rescinded all three RIF's issued to our MSO sisters.  One MSO sister took the severance package and the other two were able to stay in their position in the offices they currently work at.  Good news for our union sisters!  As a result, MSO withdrew the RIF grievance they had filed, with a warning to MNEA that if future RIF's occur, they need to start at the bottom of the applicable position list or MSO would be refiling the grievance for violation of the contract.

MSO also has a pending grievance regarding the move of an employee from her department to a totally different location in the same building -- for reasons that make no sense to us and which appear to be retaliatory.  The formal grievance meeting was held on March 2nd.  We will keep you informed.

On a concerned note -- MSO is noticing an increase in warnings, reprimands and negative evaluations for some of our active MSO officers.  We will let you know as things develop.  MSO will not stand for discrimination or retaliation for things that everyone should have put behind them.

Reduction in Force (RIF) Update - Feb. 17, 2012

Given the number of staff who have decided to take advantage of the Voluntary Staff Reduction incentive offered by MNEA, there have been promising conversations with MSO's two union sisters who received RIF notices.  We are hoping that because of this, their RIF's will be withdrawn.  MSO has put their grievance on hold, in order to have the time to see how this plays out.  Everyone, please think positive thoughts for our two union sisters!!

FEBRUARY UPDATE

REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF) NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED TO ASSOCIATE STAFF....

Three of our fellow union sisters got RIF notifications recently.  MSO does not agree with the method by which MNEA chose the people who received those RIF's.  Instead of starting at the bottom of the Administrative Assistant list, using seniority, MNEA picked and chose folks according to office location.  We believe MNEA did this because they bargained away the right to involuntarily transfer employees back in 1997.

One of our union sisters is a 25 year employee, one of our sisters is an 18 year employee, and the other sister is a 5-1/2 year employee.  This has turned their lives upside down.  MSO has filed a grievance over this matter, because MNEA's previous bargaining error does not justify how they did these RIF's.

MNEA has offered a Severance Package to employees, and even though at least 3 of our union members plan to take it (including the 25 year employee who got the RIF notice) -- we are very concerned that MNEA still won't keep the two other MSO positions that they have issued RIF notifications for.  Stay tuned...  We are trying to work with MNEA to resolve this -- but it's been a  frustrating process.

JANUARY UPDATE:

FURTHER INFO ABOUT MEDIATION....
As a result of the mediation meeting in December, MNEA and MSO have come to agreement on several items.  A labor-management training, conducted by the FMCS, will be conducted on January 19th -- with all associate staff at HQ, MSO union officers and MNEA.  Further, all issues between management and the union having to do with the bullying incidents have been withdrawn and/or removed.  That means all disciplinary actions, all grievances, and the ULP that was filed with the NLRB have been withdrawn/removed.  Regular meetings between MNEA and MSO have been scheduled in order to keep the lines of communication open and prevent further issues from spiraling into large problems.  Regular staff meetings at HQ have also been scheduled.  MSO is glad that we were able to move in a positive direction with MNEA to resolve these past issues.  We hope that positive procedures will be put in place in case there are issues in the future, in order to avoid problems.

Happy New Year to all!

MEDIATION CONTINUES....

MSO and MNEA met with a mediator on November 14th and will meet again on December 19th (changed from Dec. 2nd).  We have hopes that positive changes will come about as a result of these meetings, the outstanding bullying issues will be dealt with, and avenues for dealing with future concerns will be set up.  We will keep you informed!
Have a happy holiday!

MSO WINS "REPRIMAND" ARBITRATION!

The decision has been received regarding the Reprimand Arbitration and MSO won!  Management bears the burden of proving the justness of a discipline.  The arbitrator found that MNEA failed to meet the burden of persuasion that our MSO member actually committed the offense that she was reprimanded for.  Further, MNEA was ordered to remove the reprimand from that MSO member’s personnel file and all other files.

MSO UPDATES - OCTOBER 2011

Reprimand Arbitration
The Reprimand Arbitration was held on October 24th.  This was the case where one of our members received a reprimand and MNEA did not follow the contractual process when issuing her that reprimand.  The arbitrator's decision is expected toward the end of the year.

Mediation!!
MNEA and MSO have agreed to sit down with a mediator to deal with the many outstanding issues regarding bullying.  MSO has several grievances pending around this issue and MNEA had issued discipline to some of our members.  It became clear that this was becoming a big issue and needed to be resolved. We agreed that some changes need to be made so things like this can be handled more positively in the future.   Both sides agreed to suspend all pending grievances and discipline while working through mediation.  In addition, we are also hoping that mediation will also lead to some type of mechanism for working on relationships, norms and the morale at headquarters.  Mediation dates are set for November 14th and December 2nd.  We will keep you informed!

MSO UPDATES - SEPTEMBER 2011

Reprimand Arbitration
The reprimand arbitration is going to be held on October 24th in Jefferson City. One of our MSO members received a reprimand for something she did not do -- and the disciplinary process MNEA utilized did not follow the contractual process.

Bullying Grievance
MSO is in the middle of going through the grievance process, as ordered by the NLRB after we filed an unfair labor practice over the bullying charges leveled against two of our MSO members. MSO asserts that our members were practicing protected, concerted union activities and that MNEA did not do a fair, thorough investigation. Further, our members were disciplined without just cause.

There was one discussion between MSO and MNEA on Sept. 6th about doing mediation to solve some of the problems around this issue -- however, after notifying MNEA a week ago that MSO was interested in doing this, we have not yet heard anything back from them. MSO is very frustrated at this being dragged out, as the longer this goes on, the worse the atmosphere and morale is at the HQ office.

MSO UPDATES -- JULY 2011

Grievances:

MSO is going to arbitration on the Reprimand grievance. MNEA did not follow the contractual process before issuing the reprimand to our member (see May Update). We are in the process of selecting dates and preparing for the hearing.

Unfair Labor Practice:

As stated in the May Update, MSO filed an Unfair Labor Practice against MNEA for the Bullying charges and reprimands that were issued to two of our members. The NLRB has deferred it back to the MSO grievance process. That means that MSO must go through our grievance process, including arbitration, to settle the matter. This is a common solution that the NLRB utilizes, so it was no surprise to us.

We are now in the process of preparing the grievance and getting ready to move forward through the grievance steps. We’ll keep you updated.

How Short-Sighted Can MNEA Be?

MSO has requested an NSO mediator to come in to assist several of our members who are having some conflict. MSO requested work time from MNEA in order for those employees to meet and try to work things out, given that it is a work situation. MSO hoped that MNEA would see the value of improving the work atmosphere and conditions for their employees. However, MNEA refused to grant work time for a meeting unless MSO withdrew the NLRB Unfair Labor Practice complaint (bullying info above).

It is too bad that MNEA was only willing to provide work time if MSO "made the deal."  MSO believes it is very short sighted of MNEA when they are unwilling to put the working conditions of their employees first – because MNEA benefits greatly when morale is good at the office.

Bargaining:

MSO and MNEA successfully reached agreement on a new one year contract for 2011-12.  The MSO ratification meeting will be held on August 10th. We hope all MSO members will attend -- as there are some important changes you will want to hear about!

MSO UPDATES -- MAY 2011

GRIEVANCES:

MSO has dropped the Business Technician Job Description grievance. We issued an "understandings" letter to MNEA, basically asking them to confirm that the new, shorter job description equals the longer, more detailed previous job description -- which they did. Also, if any additional duties were to be added, MNEA will follow the processes in the contract.

MSO is determining whether to move forward to arbitration with the Reprimand grievance (a reprimand was issued to one of our members without following the contractual process). MNEA did nothing in the grievance process to give us any information to try to resolve it. We will keep you posted on this one.

MSO has issued a complaint to MNEA regarding their one line, no details, no effort to work it out type of responses to our grievances. We used to get responses with REAL REASONS why they were denying it. Lately, it's just "we see no contractual violation...so the grievance is denied" type of responses. It sure doesn't give us any information so we can see where they are coming from -- and definitely doesn't give leave us any avenue to try to come to some type of resolution. We'll see if they make any effort to improve their communication...

BARGAINING:

AS you know, MSO was at the table with MNEA for bargaining on May 2 & 3. We bargain again on June 1.

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE:

MSO has a duty to protect and defend their members. Therefore, MSO is filing an Unfair Labor Practice this week against MNEA for their "guilty" findings regarding Bullying charges against two of our MSO officers. These two MSO members received a written reprimand in their personnel file because of it. MSO believes that MNEA violated section 8.a.3. of the National Labor Relations Act, which prohibits discrimination against union members for union activities. MSO believes that if MNEA had done an honest, thorough investigation (as outlined in the Bullying policy), they would have found the charges were not substantiated. We'll keep you posted on this one, too.

MSO ARBITRATION UPDATES - MARCH 2011

MSO'S STAFFINGG RATIO ARBITRATION UPDATE:
Here is the award from the Staffing Ratio Arbitration, heard on Sept. 1, 2010. Please note that while we did not win the arbitration, the arbitrator holds the employer accountable for not over-burdening the employees. This means when new or additional duties are added, you have the right to ask either (1) what MNEA is taking away to balance out the new duties, or (2) that MNEA prioritize your work (YOU SHOULD NOT DO THE PRIORITIZING) so that you know what things fall to the end of the list, in case you can't get everything done.

Staffing Ratio Award:
The Employer did not violate the labor agreement
when it issued a job description for the position of
Executive Secretary to the Executive Director and
Legal that provides that this position provide nonconfidential
secretarial support to other managers
who do not have an assigned secretary. The
grievance is denied.

One caveat is in order. Management must make sure
that the managers who are served by the new secretarial
position here in issue do not overburden the employee assigned
to the position. The arbitrator does not see anything in the
new job description which would necessarily constitute an
unreasonable workload. However, it is the responsibility of
the managers who share the secretary’s services to make sure
that they divide her time and effort in a reasonable way.

MSO'S OTHER DUTIES AS ASSIGNED ARBITRATION:
MSO and MNEA went to arbitration on February 22, 2011 on this isssue. At the beginning of the hearing, it was decided that we could settle it without the arbitrator. The final agreement included MNEA meeting with the remaining employee who MNEA had not met with (per the contractual process) to discuss the changes to her job and allow her to provide input.

OTHER ISSUES FOR MSO:
We currently have two grievances underway.

One is regarding the major changes made to the way the Business Technician's job description was written after Barb left.

The other is regarding a reprimand received by an employee without MNEA going through the contractual steps outlined in the contract. Additionally, many of our "active" union members are being held to standards which are not being applied to every employee. This is a major concern and MSO is very concerned that MNEA is discriminating based on union activity. We'll keep you posted.


We will update this in the near future to let you know what MSO's next action will be regarding these issues -- as well as some new ones that may be looming on the horizon.

MSO Happenings – September 2010

Upcoming Arbitration…
MSO’s “other duties as assigned” arbitration has been scheduled for February 22, 2011 in Jefferson City. MNEA has been taking duties from one job description (now vacant) and assigning them to other people in the bargaining unit. MNEA is calling everything they want to shuffle elsewhere “other duties as assigned.” Here is a summary of MSO’s argument.

VIOLATION: Past practice
MSO maintains that the MNEA is violating past practice by pulling specific jobs duties listed in other job descriptions and placing them in another staff position’s job duties as “other duties as assigned.” That is not “what other duties as assigned” has meant previously.
There are specific job duties assigned to specific positions and just because MNEA wants to shuffle them around, doesn’t mean they can be lumped under “other duties as assigned” and given to anyone. Past practice upholds that standard.

VIOLATION: Unilateral changes in working terms and conditions
MSO maintains that changes in working terms and conditions must be bargained. You have essentially eliminated a position or part of a position and tried to place it in another position’s job duties. It is a unilateral change in terms and working conditions, both in terms of how work is assigned within the union, and for those MSO members who are assigned the extra duties.


Arbitration Decision Awaited…
MSO’s “staffing ratio” arbitration was heard by an arbitrator on September 1, 2010. We expect a decision about mid-November.

MSO is disputing the job duties assigned to the Executive Secretary position. The job description states: “Provides non-confidential secretarial support to the Executive Director, the Director of Legal Services and Human Resources and other Directors or Managers not currently assigned a secretary…” MSO objects to this position’s workload, as the position will be serving Ben Simmons, Jacquie Shipma, along with Patrick Harvey, Karen Sholes, Jay Hall and Laverne Copeland. This is a 6:1 ratio; however, the past practice for associate staff is – and has been – 2:1.

VIOLATION: Past practice
MSO maintains that assigning a ratio of greater than 2:1 professional/managerial staff per associate staff is a violation of past practice.

VIOLATION: Unilateral changes in working terms and conditions
MSO maintains the job duties of the Executive Secretary – specifically of who she works for – violates our collective bargaining agreement – as the 2:1 ratio is a contractual right, which can only be changed at the bargaining table.


Recent Victories!!
SETTLEMENT OF KAREN HARTMAN'S TERMINATION ARBITRATION
MNEA and MSO came to an agreement on a settlement for Karen Hartman in lieu of going to arbitration. MSO believes that MNEA violated the MSO Contract by not giving her a list of her deficiencies and 30 days to correct them, as called for in the contract language (similar to PIP’s issued to teachers):

MSO Contract Language: The Association in its sole discretion reserves the right to discharge a probationary employee for any reason; however, the Association shall notify a probationary employee of any deficiencies that may exist in his/her performance which could result in his/her discharge prior to or at the expiration of his/her probationary period. Such notice shall provide at least thirty (30) days for the employee to correct any such deficiencies. The employee shall be given a performance improvement plan and have the option of utilizing an MSO mentor to assist with achieving improvement.

REMEDY: Karen received a nice monetary settlement.


SETTLEMENT OF JOB DESCRIPTION GRIEVANCE
MSO argued that MNEA violated MSO Contract Article 7.3 by changing the job description for Regional Secretary on 12/15/05 – and not discussing it beforehand with all regional secretaries affected. Most, if not all, of the regional secretaries were last evaluated during the summer of 2004 and, at that time, the job description in place was dated 12/21/99. There was no discussion regarding any changes that were planned to be made to the job description dated 12/21/99 before the new job description was issued on 12/15/05. Further, the job description dated 12/15/05 was not distributed to all of the regional secretaries – and therefore many were even unaware that it existed.

REMDY: MNEA agreed to go through the contractual process of discussing the job description with the regional secretaries and has done so.