Arbitrator Crump has found in favor of the employer for our sick time arbitration.
His decision in BMS case 12-PA-0846 is:
After study of the testimony and
other evidence produced at the hearing, on the arguments of the parties (in
post-hearing written briefs) on that evidence in support of their respective
positions, and on the basis of the above discussion, summary of the testimony,
analysis and conclusions, I make the following award:
1.
The
Employer established a reasonable attendance policy;
2.
The
Counseling the Grievant was within the bounds of the CBA and the Law; and
3.
The
Union Grievances is DENIED in full as set forth herein.
The Union's main position was that the new Lexipol Policy on Sick Leave violated the Contract by suddenly making use of 96 hours of sick time in a rolling 12 month period "abuse" of sick time, even if such use was for purposes allowed in the contract, or even pre-approved. The Union's position was that if the Employer wanted a change to the Sick Time language in the contract it should be negotiated, not just issued as policy and then applied RETROACTIVELY one year.
The Employer's position was:
Mathisen testified that
what lead to enactment the 2011-Sick Leave and Attendance Policy were two-fold:
first, sick leave usage was very high, especially in the jail, and with that
goes a premium over-time costs being
paid for sick leave usage, and secondly, moral among some employees who were
continually being drafted to cover a shift in the jail at a cost of one-and-a
half time the salary.
...The main
purpose of the Policy states that attendance is an essential function of every
job in the Sheriff's Offices, absenteeism reduces the efficiency of office's
operations, costs the County and it's taxpayers money, and requires co-workers
to do the work of absent colleagues.
The Employer called
William P. Peters (Peters), Director of Labor Relations. Peters testified that
he has worked 34 years for Hennepin County and 13 years in the current position
as Director of Labor Relations.
Peters testified further
on the subjects regarding Employer Authority,
Article 6, and Complete Agreement and waiver of Bargaining, Article 24, in the
current Contract. He pointed out that the relevance of those two Articles is
axiomatic in Labor Relations to understand that Management has nearly unlimited
rights to establish the terms and conditions of employment unless those terms
and conditions are specifically modified or abridged by the Labor Contract.
While I am disappointed in the Arbitrator's award I am again dumbstruck by the employers constant negative attitude towards its' employees.
To make a policy and enforce it retroactively leaves me dumbstruck. Then to further dig in their heels to the point of arbitration rather than to negotiate.
I find it even more amazing that the reason the employer cites for this retroactive sick leave policy was a concern over, " premium over-time costs being paid for sick leave usage, and secondly, moral among some employees who were continually being drafted to cover a shift in the jail at a cost of one-and-a half time the salary."
Yet even though we are the largest jail in the State of Minnesota, we are the lowest paid Detention Deputies in the metro area. Even their low ball contract proposal we are currently voting on will keep us there. The low pay has led to staff shortages, overtime and drafts, and is only getting worse. As far a "moral among some employees," the low pay, wage freezes and 28 day schedule eliminated that years ago.
I believe the citizens of Hennepin County are in for a public safety crisis this summer when the scores of Hennepin County Detention Deputies and 911 Dispatchers, who are currently being back-grounded, move on to other better paying jobs.
Then let's revisit overtime costs and moral among employees.
