|
CO3s, CVEO3s,
Electronic Services, Fire Marshals, Fleet Support,
Technical
Services Bureau
|
members
in action |
Watch for a Workplace Union Meeting Coming Soon!
Pizza and Soft Drinks Provided to WPEA
Members
Mark your calendar and plan to attend your
scheduled workplace meeting and learn what the union is
working on for you. For more information, contact
your WPEA Staff Rep.
APRIL 2007
WPEA Working to Restore Asst. Deputy
Fire Marshal Classification
WPEA was notified that the Washington State
Patrol, in conjunction with the Department of Personnel (DOP),
was going to make “housekeeping only” changes to Assistant
Deputy State Fire Marshal
specification in conjunction with the DOP Group 4 Class
Consolidation. With concern about any such changes to the
specification, WPEA contacted Rick Shea, the DOP analyst,
and inquired about the proposal. He stated that the changes
are in regards to the abolishment of the Assistant Deputy
State Fire Marshal classification and the need to come
up with different minimum/desirable qualifications in the
absence of the experience one would have as an Assistant
Deputy State Fire Marshal. He described these changes as
“housekeeping” in nature.
Where was management on this issue?
The Union took issue with the abolishment of
this position. We asked
if management was on board with the proposal to abolish the
class? Shea stated that as a matter of course, the DOP
abolished all positions that appeared to be in disuse by
management.
WPEA stated there was still a critical need for the
Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal position. As an
example, we told them that management had recently asked to
contract out Deputy State Fire Marshal (DSFM) work because the new hire into the
position did not yet have the skill and training needed to
fulfill full DSFM duties.
We believe that both the Union and
management would support the restoration of the Assistant
Deputy State Fire Marshal position, as it was critical to
training up to the full Deputy State Fire Marshal.
WPEA requested that until such time as we had
been copied on any proposed change to the specification,
including housekeeping changes, the specification should not
go forward to review. We stated we need time to get input
from our membership and to do our own analysis prior to any
DOP review of the proposed change. DOP agreed with WPEA
that management needed to copy the Union on changes to the
specification and postponed their review from Group 4A
to group 4D allowing the necessary time needed.
More than just “housekeeping”
When WPEA received the proposed “housekeeping
changes” from WSP Human Resource Division, we noted they
were far beyond “housekeeping.” The proposed changes
altered the scope of work, scope of responsibility, and
significantly dumbed-down the classification.
We immediately took issue with their proposal
and formalized our concern to Rick Shea at the DOP in
writing. Shea notified WPEA that he was also concerned about
the proposal.
WPEA went to the DOP Review on the DSFM
specification and formally opposed any changes to the
specification at this time. We stated that no changes should
take effect without a full analysis of the specification and
classification, not only in relation to the actual work
being conducted, but also in relation to the
statute-mandated responsibilities. We also believed there
was a continued need for the Assistant Deputy State Fire
Marshal position as a critical training step.
Shea agreed with WPEA and denied management’s
proposed changes. He stated the DSFM specification would
proceed to the May 2007 Board Review intact and unchanged,
with the Assistant Deputy State Fire Marshal experience as
it was defined, before abolishment of that position by the
DOP. WPEA will be watching the 20 day notice from DOP to be
sure no changes are made to your specification.
Is Management misusing PDP & PDF?
We are also concerned that management is
trying to “direct deal” with individual employees through
the Performance and Development Plan and Position
Description Form.
None of you should be asked to redefine
the minimum qualifications for the work you do in the PDF or
as part of the evaluation process. You should be
updating your position in regard to work you are performing
and percentages of work. But as far as the specification is
concerned, the work and scope needs to be in-line with and
bordered by that specification, including the minimum and
desirable qualifications.
Any change to the specification or
classification needs to be in conjunction with DOP due
process, including a full classification analysis and 20 day
notice process, allowing for the Union and membership to
weigh in.
If you have questions or concerns about you
classification please contact
Marian Gonzales,
Assistant Director for Field Services, at 1-800-544-9732
ext. 118 .
MARCH 2007
Union Representation Grievance Settled at Pre-Arb
WPEA recently won a precedent-setting
grievance settlement. The grievance was filed on behalf of a
Washington State Patrol (WSP) employee who was denied the
right to requested union representation.
The employee sincerely believed that
management was using the Performance Development Plan (PDP)
process and meetings in a way that would negatively impact
them. The employee believed the PDP process and meetings
were:
-
Being used to dumb down the position,
leading to a downward allocation.
-
Taking retaliatory actions toward the
employee for being outspoken.
-
Being used incorrectly to unfairly target
the employee.
-
Used by management to threaten and scare
the employee.
-
Used in a way that caused a violation of
the union contract.
The employee, therefore, requested that no
PDP meetings be held unless the Union Representative was
there. After receiving notification from the employee, the
Staff Rep appropriately notified WSP that she would be
attending the meeting with the employee, in line with the
request for union representation, as stated in the contract.
When the Union Representative showed up for
the meeting with the employee, management stated the Union
Rep could not come to the meeting, as it involved a “routine
discussion” with the supervisor. The Union Representative
disagreed, stating the contract language was clear in
Article 35, Union Activities, where it states:
Upon Request, employees will have the
right to representation at all levels on any matter
adversely affecting their conditions of employment.
Despite this, management cancelled the PDP
meeting and escorted the Staff Rep off the premises.
Management also did not allow the Staff Representative to
meet with the affected employee in the workplace when the
affected employee, who was visibly affected by this
misappro-priation of power, again requested a debrief with
the Union Representative.
LRO Agrees with WPEA
After filing the grievance at Step 1 and
taking it through Steps 2 and 3 with the WSP, the grievance
went to a Pre-Arbitration meeting where the Labor Relations
Office agreed that:
-
The Washington State Patrol did not
handle this request for Union Representation
appropriately.
-
The employee in question had a right to
Union Representation and that the Union Rep had a right
to meet with the affected employee in the work place.
Though the WSP would not admit to
“wrongdoing,” they did say “things got out of hand,” and
regretfully so.
As part of the grievance settlement, WPEA
requested that a letter be sent to the affected employee
assuring the employee of the right to union representation,
even in PDP meetings, when that representation was
requested, due to the actual “fear” that something adverse
was taking place, or going to take place.
They stated that in the future, the request
for Union Representation, under these circumstances, would
not be denied to any affected employee, including those who
believed they would be adversely affected through the PDP
process.
A secondary part of the settlement was
notification to WPEA Bargaining Unit employees, of the
grievance and the grievance settlement, with the assurance
that, in the future, the WSP will abide by the contract and
not interfere in any employee’s request for Union
Representation on any matter that could adversely affect
them. And, the WSP will not interfere in a Union
Representative’s right and duty to meet with affected
employees in the interest of providing representation, on or
off the work premises, in line with the contract.
Major Victory for Members
This settlement is a substantial win for WPEA
and our represented employees. We hope it also represents a
positive shift in how the Washington State Patrol is
choosing to work with the Union.
Remember, in any situation where you think or feel you are
going to be, or are being adversely impacted by management’s
actions, you have the right to request a Union
Representative. If you are in a meeting, you have the right
to request that the meeting stop until such time as you have
a Union Rep present. Management must stop the meeting and
allow you to call for a Union Representative. They must
allow for the Union Representative’s meeting with you to
prepare for the meeting, and must allow the representative
at the meeting.
JANUARY 2007
WPEA
Wins UMCC Leave Grievance
On December 1, 2005, WPEA Member Leader
Ernie Brown, of the Washington State Patrol (WSP),
attended a Union-Management Communication Committee (UMCC)
meeting as a member representative at the WSP headquarters
in Olympia. After filing his time sheets, he was informed
that WSP did not consider the travel time to and from the
meeting (4.5 hours round-trip from Marysville) as work time
and that he would have to use Annual Leave to cover his
travel time to attend the UMCC meeting.
A grievance was filed by WPEA at Step 1, and
the WSP decided to bump it to Step 3 - the executive level -
due to its importance. Although it took some heroic efforts
to schedule the grievance meeting (due to staff changes,
vacations, holidays, floods, and wind and snow storms), the
meeting finally took place on December 7, 2006.
The Representative from WSP, Captain Marc
Lamoreaux, asked pertinent and intelligent questions and
listened to our arguments.
WPEA Staff Rep, Linda Fryant, argued
that the contract language in Article 34.3.B:
Union-Management Communication Committee Participation is
clear:
Employees attending committee meetings
during
their work time shall have no loss in pay.
The UMCC meeting was held during work time,
and since Brown had to travel to and from the meeting on
work time, there should have been no loss of pay during
travel status. The WSP granted our requested remedy of
restoring the 4.5 hours of annual leave to Brown.
“I was pleased that the Patrol showed
professionalism and a willingness to hear the arguments and
research the facts of the case,” said Fryant.
Want to know what's going on in your union?
-
Contact your
Staff Rep today about
scheduling a brown bag lunch meeting
in your workplace.
-
Attend your
Quarterly Membership Meetings and scheduled workplace
meetings.
-
Give
WPEA your home e-mail so you can receive
up-to-the-minute news
on important union issues and actions.
-
Be a Member Leader -- signup for the
Bulldog Action Team.
-
Check the web site weekly for all the
latest news, actions, bargaining, and work-related
information you need to know!
|
Archives