|
|
|
|
Health & Safety Division Ratifies Contract The Department of Public Health and Human Services contract covering three divisions, including Quality Assurance, Health Resources and Public Health and Safety is completed. The last component, Health and Safety, ratified its division’s approach to discretionary pay May 1 in an on-site election. It was agreed that effective September 13, the .6 percent discretionary increase would be used to move all members of the bargaining unit to “no less than 85 percent of the market of their occupational range.” The new agreement also provides that “employees not eligible for the move to 85 percent of market shall receive 10 cents an hour on their base pay. MPEA members Theresa Gruby, Joyce Taranik, Ruth Piccone and Howard Reid worked with Stacey Bird to negotiate this agreement. updated 5/14/08
MPEA’s Health Resources Division Reaches Agreement with DPHHS MPEA’s Health Resources Division Reaches Agreement with DPHHS An agreement has been ratified by the Health Resources Division of the Department of Public Health and Human Services on how to allocate discretionary resources. The agreement with the division established 87 percent of market as a minimum rate of pay for a position, according to MPEA Field Representative Stacey Bird. The division has a number of workers well below the 87 percent of market figure. Additionally, according to Bird, all workers in the division will receive an increase of .6 percent on an across-the-board basis. These pay increases will not wait until October 2008 to be implemented. Instead, the pay increases will become effective May 18, according to Bird. The agreement was ratified April 28 in an on-site election. updated 5/14/08
Quality Assurance Unit Approves Tentative Agreement The Quality Assurance Division has approved a tentative agreement spelling out how these members wish to allocate the .6 percent discretionary resource that was part of this biennium’s pay plan. Ballots were counted March 27. MPEA Field Representative Stacey Bird said the contract covers those in the Quality Assurance Division, as well as, those in the Public Health and Safety and Child and Adult Health Resources divisions. Negotiations continue for these divisions.
For Quality Assurance
how to spend the .6 percent discretionary pay was always the principal
issue needing to be resolved. Bird said that in the first In the second year, everyone in Quality Assurance who is under 100 percent of the market rate will receive a .6 percent discretionary wage increase. There are a number of individuals over 100 percent of the market rate. This group will see only the 3 percent increase that is for everyone. The remaining resource will then be used to bring all employees up to at least 87 percent of the market rate. The Quality Assurance agreement also includes new provisions relating to hiring rates, training assignments, strategic pay and situational pay. It was agreed that new employees to the division would be hired at a base rate that was either at entry or above for the occupation and that this base rate would be determined on the basis of pay rates for other employees in the same job classification and upon the qualifications of the new employee. It was agreed that MPEA would be notified of any hiring rate that is above entry. Training assignments will be used to enable an employee to gain additional experience required for a job; at the end of the training period the employee’s pay is to be adjusted. Training periods are not to exceed two years. It was also agreed that the flexibility to provide what has come to be called “strategic pay” should be part of the pay mix. What is being attempted is to ensure that key personnel are either retained or hired. Again, MPEA is to be notified when such an action is to take place.
There are also
situations that arise that demand unusual hours, or extreme workload
demands, as well as those occasions when it becomes necessary to take over
the duties of a supervisor. It was agreed that the department may consider
situational-based pay on a case-by-case basis. It was also agreed that
situational-based pay would amount to the individual’s base rate of pay
times 7.5 percent to a maximum of $2 per hour, and that when an employee
must act in a supervisory role it would amount to the individual’s base
rate of pay times 10 percent to a maximum of $2.50 per hour. updated 3/28/08
Montana Supreme Court Broadens & Clarifies Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining (Editor’s note: Recently, MPEA filed an Unfair Labor Practice with the Board of Personnel Appeals over a dispute with the State Fund management over reneging on important specifics of an appeals process that was to be used by employees who disagreed with their employee performance appraisal, which are used to determine pay. State Fund has contended the process wasn’t negotiable. MPEA is reviewing the Jan. 15 Montana Supreme Court decision on mandatory subjects of bargaining to assess its relevance to the issues with State Fund. This decision arises out of a case involving the Bonner Education Association and the school board over the reassigning of several teachers during the 2003-04 school year. Teachers argued the changes needed to be bargained, the district that the actions weren’t mandatory subjects of bargaining. This was a unanimous decision. MPEA, State Fund, and the Board of Personnel Appeals will issue a decision April 18 on a hearing date). The Montana Supreme Court’s Jan. 15 decision broadens and clarifies those subjects a public employer must negotiate. The 1973 Collective Bargaining Act obligates a public employer to bargain “in good faith with respect to wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other conditions of employment.” The state Supreme Court notes that this section is virtually identical to the collective bargaining mandate in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). An employer commits an unfair labor practice if it refuses to negotiate in good faith on any of these subjects (wages, hours, fringe benefits, and other conditions of employment). The court, in its discussion of the case, also notes that neither Montana’s Collective Bargaining Act nor the NLRA defines “other conditions of employment.” The court decided, based on precedent, to look to federal decisions for instruction. The U.S. Supreme Court and the NLRB have construed conditions of employment broadly for purposes of the collective bargaining mandate. The state Supreme Court notes in its discussion that the policy of fostering “industrial peace” represents a primary consideration when classifying a bargaining subject as a condition of employment under the NLRA. Reference is then made by the court to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the setting of food prices for in-plant meals at the Ford Motor Co. constituted a condition of employment, which is then described as “plainly germane to the working environment,” and “not among those managerial decisions which lie at the core of entrepreneurial control.” Managerial decisions that “lie at the core of entrepreneurial control,” as distinguished from conditions of employment, include those things related to the “basic scope of the enterprise.” The Jan. 15 decision recalls that the federal courts and the NLRB have determined that a diverse range of issues qualify as conditions of employment, and thus constitute mandatory subjects of bargaining. Such things as telephone access, breaks, performance shortfalls, rental rates for company houses, the transferring of employees from department to department, employee transfers , even if they are non-union, all constituted a condition of employment that required collective bargaining. The state Supreme Court reminds that it has been determined that a related bargaining subject, seniority, posed a mandatory bargaining subject because requiring negotiation provides “protection of employees against arbitrary management conduct in connection with, hire, demotion, transfer and discharge.” In their unanimous decision, it is stated that the overarching policy behind the Collective Bargaining for Public Employees Act encourages “the practice and procedure of collective bargaining to arrive at friendly adjustment of all disputes between public employers and the employees.” The management rights provisions in the Collective Bargaining Act are also discussed; they are found in all MPEA contracts and in the CBA. “As a matter of statutory construction, the statutory management rights provision does not absolve public employers from their duty to bargain for employee transfers (the issue about which the case was brought). The school district involved relied on management rights to make their decisions. The state Supreme Court states in its decision that “statutory management rights does not absolve public employers from duty to bargain with employees.” According to newspaper reports, the case stems from a decision by the Bonner School District, under the direction of a new superintendent, to involuntarily transfer or reassign several teachers in 2003-04. According to court records, the transfers and reassignments affected the teachers' areas of expertise and subjects taught. In April 2004, the Bonner Education Association responded by filing an unfair labor practice claim with the state Board of Personnel Appeals. The union alleged the school district had violated state law by refusing to bargain in good faith. At the time, the association and district were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that didn't include procedures for teacher transfers and reassignments, court records said. The agreement did, however, include a "management rights clause" that recognized the school board's prerogative to manage the district "except as limited by explicit terms" of the agreement, the court documents said. The Board of Personnel Appeals conducted a hearing and determined the parties' past bargaining practice of not addressing transfers and reassignments preserved the association's right to bargain for those things. The board ruled in favor of the association, and the school district petitioned the District Court for judicial review. District Judge Dorothy McCarter, Helena, later disagreed, saying a state statute gave the school district the right to transfer or reassign its employees without having to bargain. The education association appealed to the state Supreme Court, which reversed the decision. updated 4/10/08
Revenue Increases Wages, Uses Different Approach to Determine Market Pay Members of the MPEA/MEA-MFT Department of Revenue Chapter ratified the balance of their contract Dec. 18. Like other chapters the members ratified most components in early October and agreed distribution of the discretionary increase and progression to market would take place later. Unlike other chapters management and labor agreed to use an independent contractor to secure market data for revenue department positions. That data revealed significant differences from that used by the Department of Administration, which always uses figures that are both old and reduced by 15 percent. In short, D of A data doesn’t accurately reflect market. What was voted on were pay increases driven by up-to-date and unreduced market figures. The cost, as Deputy Director Dave Hunter explained to the Legislative Finance Committee Dec. 12 is about $4 million. This is personal services money above the 3.6 percent and 3.6 percent increases. The cost so far is estimated at about $3.2 million. About one-third of the members of this chapter received pay increases ranging from $1.50 per hour to $4 per hour. There are, at this writing, a number of positions remaining to be analyzed and which it is anticipated will use the remaining $800,000. It is hoped that the contract can be reopened in May to incorporate the positions now being analyzed. The nature of “market pay” has changed since the system was introduced in 1991. It is less meaningful to look at other states and national data when you can’t keep up with what local governments in your own state are paying. A good example is the Highway Patrol. The patrol now has a pay plan which uses the average pay of deputies in some of the larger counties. If you’re a nurse working for the state or county the private sector in your community will be paying at a higher rate. Bivins said the negotiations with Revenue was patterned after MPEA’s Department of Labor and Industry model, which sought to get everyone to 100 percent of market. The effort in Revenue was to get everyone to 95 percent of market. Should some of the $800,000 now set aside while the remaining positions are examined for market comparability not be used, those remaining resources will be used to move Revenue employees closer to 100 percent of market. Bargaining team members working with MPEA’s Tom Bivins and MEA/MFT’s Tom Burgess included Beth McKenzie, Bozeman; Blake Gardiner, Helena; Liz Franz, Wibaux; and, Jim Wilcox, Missoula. updated 1/30/08
OPA Looking for Workers with Secondary Language Skills
There are three specific reasons given to Bird for this need, including: 1. Medicaid officials want to know what states are doing to accommodate those speaking another language. It is not mandatory and Montana does not have a significant number of Spanish speaking workers, but Snedigar believes it is becoming more of an issue. In Gallatin County, for instance, the dairies are not able to hire local residents to work and the majority of employees now come from other states and speak mostly Spanish. Snedigar relayed that the clinic has been doing most of the translation, but there is a push from a community advocacy group to have the translation service available at OPA offices. 2. Native languages are still spoken in reservation counties. Bird wrote that with the increased aging population and the requests for Medicaid “they think they might be able to attract people who can speak the language and break down barriers to service.” 3. There is a migrant season and most of those workers do not speak English and it is required that states make sure these individuals have access to food stamps for which they are qualified. It is noted that the Public Assistance Bureau is having its applications translated into Spanish. Employees who are willing to do translation work will help other offices and be available by telephone. Bird said she was told that there is most likely no travel except possibly to Montana reservations. Naturally, some testing will be needed. The proficiency testing will require proof the person can speak one of the languages sought and the individual must have someone conversant in the language attest to their competency in that language, Bird was told. The proficiency test will be available for current employees and be used on the recruitment announcements used to attract applicants. Bird explained that initially an increase in pay of 10 cents an hour was proposed by Snedigar. Bird said there was no particular logic to the use of 10 cents an hour so she proposed to establish a logical justification for pay. Bird said it made more sense to estimate the hours that would be used in one year and divide that by the number of work hours in a year (2080) to get a percentage of time employees would be on the translation task. It was estimated that a little more than one percent of an individual’s time would be used and, according to Bird, “we agreed that the pay would be one percent of the employee’s base pay and would be tracked as differential pay.” It was also agreed that when base salaries increase the per hour amount, estimated at 13 cents, would also increase. The bureau is to track the number of hours that are spent on the translation activity so it can be reviewed before the next set of negotiations. It was also agreed that the increased pay would be retroactive to the pay period which includes Nov. 5, 2007. Bird said that Hanson is preparing a Memorandum of Understanding. When it is complete it will be posted on the MPEA Web site. updated 1/30/08
A first-ever contract was approved by MPEA’s Montana Lottery Chapter Dec. 3. MPEA Field Representative Mark Langdorf said the contract was approved following mediation sessions Nov. 8 and 9. Federal mediator Ted Handle, Great Falls, brought the sides together, according to Langdorf. Negotiating with Langdorf were Jeff Vader, a warehouseman, and Gary Abel, a lottery sales representative. updated 12/04/07 |
|
| Home | Contact Info | Board of Directors | MPEA Staff | History | NOTICE | Last Modified: Wednesday May 14, 2008 Web Design By Sara Dobbins To report any problems please email sara@mympea.org |
