Union Position Clause Samples

Union Position. Any employee elected to the union position of:

Union Position. An employee elected or appointed to a full-time executive position within the Union will be granted a leave of absence without pay as herein provided of a period of one (1) year. Requests for such leave of absence will not be unreasonably denied, provided suitable replacements are available.

Union Position. The Union requested that all matters, with the exception of a wage adjustment for the Terminal Access Control, Backflow, Access Control (TAC) classification, be accepted as agreed upon in the Memorandum of Settlement that was rejected on February 17, 2017. The Union also asked that the interest arbitrator remain seized to adjudicate any matters that might arise from the implementation of this instant award, prior to the conclusion of the renewal collective agreement by the parties. The Union revisited the established consensus from interest arbitrators that the primary objective of interest arbitration was to replicate, as closely as possible, the result that might have occurred through collective bargaining, had the parties been free to enact the ultimate industrial sanction of either strike or lockout. That process, the Union urged, relied on the consideration of objective factors only, and not ad hoc or subjective speculation about what the outcome of bargaining might have entailed. Therefore, the Union continued, while the role of the interest arbitrator was to ultimately establish the terms of a renewed collective agreement, it nevertheless remained a pursuit that must be adjudicative in principle. In Re Building Service Employees, Local 204 and Welland County General Hospital (1965) 16 L.A.C. 1, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ considered the subject, and explained that the process of interest arbitration should address “adjudication” and not “adjustment.” Such an objective approach would, it was reasoned, measure the aspirations of the parties with regard to wages and working conditions based on relevant comparisons, and not abstract notions of social justice or fairness: A central issue which we faced at the outset was whether this board was to adjust or to adjudicate the differences between the parties. If we were to attempt adjustment, we would seek to reach a result agreeable to both parties. This we might do by proposing a series of compromises to them directly, or by their “proxies”, the two board members nominated by them. By a process of negotiation within the board or between the board and the parties, we would reach an acceptable mid-point. Failing of success, the board would compel “consensus” on the basis of a reasonable compromise between the negotiating positions of the two parties. Adjudication is a different kind of process. Here, the board applies evidence to pre- determined and rational standards, as does a Court of law or a board of arbitration ...

Union Position. Any employee elected to the union position of: Grand Lodge Officer General Chairperson Local Chairperson Legislative Representative Delegate shall be granted leave of absence as required to perform the duties of their office.

Union Position. The Union’s last offer of settlement proposes the status quo. The Union points out that none of the other employees of the City pay more than 2% of gross pay for the employee health care plan and employees in only one external comparable community pay 3%. The Union says neither the internal or external comparables support the Employer’s position. The Union also notes that the City has failed to produce any documentation or testimony on how much it would save by adoption of this proposal. The Union says the Panel should reject this proposal and maintain the status quo.

Union Position. The Union argues that the City’s proposal to increase the percentage paid by employees toward health insurance premiums must be analyzed in the context of its wage proposal. When combined, the 0%, 1.5%, 1.5% wage proposal and the 5% increase in employee contributions to health insurance premiums would the result in a net base wage decrease of 1.97%. There is no justification for the disparity between the Police settlement, which committed over $300,000 in annual expenditures for ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ benefits, the settlements with all other bargaining units in the City, which utilized a 1%, 2%, 2% wage pattern, and the offer wage/health insurance contribution package that has been offered to this bargaining unit. If the proposed increase in health insurance contributions is awarded it must be coupled with a fair wage proposal.

Union Position. The Union’s last offer of settlement proposes the language in Article 31.9 be revised as follows:

Union Position. The Union has produced a chart based on City exhibits measuring compensatory time use and overtime. It suggests that there is no relationship between of comp day usage and overall overtime costs. In general, during the years in which comp time was the highest overtime costs were lower than in years in which comp time usage was lowest.

Union Position. The Union proposes the status quo with no change to the current language. The Union points out that the deferred compensation match payments continue to be in place for the employees performing similar services in comparable communities, which have a deferred compensation match. The Union, in its post hearing brief, says the same arguments and position it took relative to the Cost of Living issue - Issue 5, apply here. The Union again notes that the City provided no evidence of its estimated actual savings if the Panel adopts its proposal. The Union says the Panel should reject the City’s proposal and adopt the Union proposal of status quo.