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.