We had a contentious bargaining session today. Topics covered included: layoff language, vacation, recall language, inclement weather reporting issues, and various other language proposals. The Union proposals that we made today were all rejected by the Company. The Company made one counter proposal to the language in the contract in regard to clearing disciplinary letters in personnel files. We accepted their proposal which now changes 5 years to 3 years except for suspension which remains at 5 years.
The Company is not willing to entertain any changes to Vacation other than their proposal of offering new hires improved vacation. The Company has stated many times that the issue with the Union's proposal is scheduling. The Union is perplexed because we have proposed the use of 3 weeks of vacation in single days as well as carryover language of 5 days but the Company rejected our proposal because of scheduling issues. We believe the Company's proposal of allowing new hires vacation will cause scheduling problems as well.
The Company is seeking to link a member’s disciplinary status to lay-off recall eligibility. They have proposed that anyone not in “Good Standing” would not be eligible for recall. The Union finds this unacceptable as lay-off language has never been linked with discipline: lay-off is an economic issue not a disciplinary issue.
The Company made it very clear that they would like to move bargaining along however they consistently rejected Union proposals without countering. In an effort to move bargaining along, the Union withdrew language proposals on FMLA, Step Family and Domestic Partner, Increase to Shoe Allowance, and language on providing job notices to employees on recall.
After our session today we met with IBEW to go over our Health proposal. Our joint meetings are scheduled for April 13 and 15 where we will present our counter proposal on Health and the Company is expected to respond to our Pension proposal.