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.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Saturday, September 11, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)