Roll-over Letter of Agreement

Transcription

1 Roll-over Letter of Agreement As required by AS , this writing constitutes the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. Except as specifically modified herein, the terms of the agreement between the parties are attached to and incorporated herein. Effective July 1, 2003, the employer health insurance contribution required by Article 28.3 shall be increased by $ In the event that the Employer agrees with any other bargaining unit to monetary terms greater than $75/member/month or the health insurance premium changes during the next benefit year, the parties agree to reopen negotiations: 1) for the purpose of extending those terms to members of the Supervisory Unit or, 2) for the purpose of addressing the impact of a mid-term health insurance premium change. This is the whole of the agreement and terminates all prior agreements whether oral or written, except such written agreements as may be specifically continued by the written agreement of the parties. Negotiations for a successor agreement shall commence on or about September 8, This agreement is effective upon signing and legislative approval pursuant to AS and shall remain in effect until June 30, Incidental Flex-time Letter of Agreement Re: Incidental Flextime Arrangements, Article SS-094 It is agreed and understood between the parties that the following terms and conditions of employment apply to the application of the above referenced contract article regarding Incidental Flextime Arrangements. Page 1 of 7

2 The parties agree that time taken under this article will not unreasonably be denied when the appropriate conditions of the article are met. This agreement modifies only the express contract article above and changes no other term or condition of the agreement. This agreement is entered into solely to address the specific circumstances of this particular issue. This agreement shall not be referred to in any dispute, grievance, arbitration, hearing, negotiation, or any forum, except as may be necessary for the execution of its terms. Flex-time extension Letter of Agreement Re: Flexible Time Plan, Article B.7 03-SS-095 It is agreed and understood between the parties that the above shall be amended to read: Under normal circumstance there shall be no carry-over of Flex Time from calendar year to calendar year except the Division Director may approve in writing that an employee use Flex Time earned in one calendar year through December 31 st of the next calendar year... This agreement modifies only the express contract article above and changes no other term or condition of the agreement. This agreement is entered into solely to address the specific circumstances of this particular situation. This agreement shall not be referred to in any other dispute, grievance, arbitration, hearing, or any other forum except as may be necessary for the execution of its terms. Article 28 Letter of Agreement RE: Article SS-093 The parties agree that Article 28.7 is deleted. Page 2 of 7

3 This agreement is entered into solely to address the specific circumstances of this particular issue. This agreement shall not be referred to in any dispute, grievance, arbitration, hearing, negotiation, or any forum, except as may be necessary for the execution of its terms. Article 17.2 Letter of Agreement Re: Article SS-096 It is agreed and understood that Article D. shall be amended to read: An organization unit must be approved at least thirty (30) calendar days before a notice of layoff is sent to any employee in the affected unit. This agreement modifies only the express contract article above and changes no other term or condition of the agreement. This agreement is entered into solely to address the specific circumstances of this particular situation. This agreement shall not be referred to in any other dispute, grievance, arbitration, hearing, or any other forum except as may be necessary for the execution of its terms. Letter of Agreement extending LOAs Consistent with the parties July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004, Collective Bargaining Agreement, it is agreed that the Letters of Agreement, listed below, that were entered into under the prior agreement, shall continue in full force and effect for the duration of the one year agreement. 00-SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS-097 Page 3 of 7

4 In addition to the above, all alternative workweek letters that are due to expire at the end of the existing agreement shall be extended through June 30, 2004, unless terminated in accordance with those letters. Article 29.8 Letter of Agreement RE. Article SS-092 Effective with the ratification of the parties July 1, June 30, 2004, agreement. The parties agree that Article 29.8 of the Supervisory Unit Agreement is deleted. This agreement is entered into solely to address the specific circumstances of this particular issue. This agreement shall not be referred to in any dispute, grievance, arbitration, hearing, negotiation, or any forum, except as may be necessary for the execution of its terms. Correction s Step Letter of Agreement RE: Correctional Supervisor Unit Step Placement 03-SS-97 The parties agree that Bargaining Unit Members who are assigned to Correctional Superintendent, Assistant Correctional Superintendent, Correctional Officer IV, and Farm Manager (Corrections) positions shall be paid the equivalent of one step above the earned step on the applicable salary table. The earned step shall not be moved forward due to the step adjustment; the merit anniversary or service step date, which ever is applicable, shall not be affected. This agreement is entered into solely to address the specific circumstances of this particular issue. This agreement shall not be referred to in any dispute, grievance, arbitration, hearing, negotiation, or any forum, except as may be necessary for the execution of its terms. Page 4 of 7

5 Article 29.2.G.2 Letter of Agreement RE: Article 29.1.G.2 03-SS-091 The Parties agree that the following shall replace Article 29.1.G.2: Except as otherwise provided in this article, upon separation from state service, an employee s medical leave bank shall be transferred to the Supervisory Catastrophic Medical Leave Bank. A Labor-Management Committee will be convened to modify the procedures regarding use of this leave bank, if necessary. This agreement is entered into solely to address the specific circumstances of this particular issue. This agreement shall not be referred to in any dispute, grievance, arbitration, hearing, negotiation, or any forum, except as may be necessary for the execution of its terms. Pros and Cons of Tentative Agreement INCREASE IN $75.00 PER MEMBER, PER MONTH FOR HEALTH INSURACE PREMIUMS PRO This increase would cover the cost of health insurance premiums for the next year and may actually provide a small cushion to the plan. It keeps things at the status quo. CON This is not enough of an increase to reduce the employee s contribution to health insurance. The status quo is not good enough since our contribution to health insurance has gone up over the years. REVISION OF SUPERVISORY CATASTROPHIC MEDICAL LEAVE BANK, ARTICLE 29.1.G.2 PRO Currently, when an employee separates from State service, 15 hours of the employees unused medical leave bank gets transferred to Supervisory Catastrophic Medical Leave Bank (SCMLB). The change to this article would allow all of the unused leave to be transferred to the SCMLB. This will represent a substantial (huge) gain in the number of hours going into the SCMLB and will increase the exploration of how this bank might be used to fairly benefit all members (i.e. health incentive programs). CON There are no perceived cons to this proposal. It s an all win scenario since the current unused medical leave bank (beyond the 15 hours) is completely lost when an employee separates from service. Page 5 of 7

6 REVISION OF FLEXIBLE TIME PLAN, ARTICLE B.7, ALLOWING A DIVISION DIRECTOR TO CARRY OVER FLEX TIME TO BE USED IN THE FOLLOWING CALENDAR YEAR PRO Currently, under this article all flex time accrued in a calendar year must be used in that calendar year. This provision allows a division director to carry this leave to the following calendar year so there is a better chance of actually using all of it up. This is an important step in the right direction of providing more flexibility to the people working under this provision. CON It does not mandate that a division director must agree to this provision. While it opens the door to more flexibility, it doesn t really require a director to walk through it. It might provide some relief to those employees with good directors, but it s still a long ways from dealing with the overall issue of excessive and burdensome hours some supervisors are required to work. REVISION OF INCIDENTAL FLEXTIME ARRANGEMENTS, ARTICLE 25.12, WHICH STATES THE PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE MAY NOT UNREASONABLY BE DENIED PRO This change places the burden on the State to provide justification for why this provision cannot be used. Currently, we have reports of some supervisors who just don t believe in it (flextime), but cannot base their denial on bona fide work related reasons. This changes the standard of proof in our favor. CON No obvious cons to this proposal, except that there is the recognition that as a State, we have a long ways to go in terms of providing flexibility to our work force. Many other governmental and non-governmental agencies have gone a long ways to providing flexible work hours for their employees. DELETION OF HEALTH CARE TRUST LANGUAGE, ARTICLE 28.7, WHICH REMOVES THE OPTION OF A HEALTH CARE TRUST PROGRAM PRO Under the current language of this article, as the current reserves of the State run medical plan reached $1.6 million dollars, we were facing the necessity of starting a union trust medical insurance program (like ASEA is currently doing). These plans can and do provide possible improvements to health insurance when operated properly. As many of you have ed to us about ASEA s plan, they can also be a disaster when started up or improperly managed. We have decided a more cautious route is best and wanted to thoroughly study ASEA s, and others, experience before jumping head long Page 6 of 7

7 into such an endeavor. Removing this article prevents the formation of a Union trust at this juncture, but still allows us the option of requesting that language be placed back in the future, but with more flexibility for us as to timing. CON A somewhat complicated con does exist. If certain cost shifting is successful from the other unions, and the State does not take action to prevent this, our State run health plan could become more and more expensive than the other unions plans. The State and APEA/AFT seem to be in agreement that this is a bad scenario for all. While it s hard to believe at this point (keeping in mind all of your s on this issue), there is a small chance that a Union operated trust may actually be desirable under future possible scenarios. DELETION OF ARTICLE 29.8, THE PROHIBITION OF S.U. MEMBERS GETTING A LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ACCEPT EXEMPT OR PARTIALLY EXEMPT POSITIONS PRO The current prohibition prevents employees from taking exempt (i.e. Division Director) positions for periods of time. Employees have to sacrifice all sense of security to take an exempt position, which creates a chilling effect on very suitable employees who might be quite qualified for these positions. This change allows an employee to move up for perhaps a transition time. This provision has also been routinely worked around by putting people in acting Director status. CON From a logistical perspective, this does complicate how people below the exempt position are filled into the vacant spots. The original argument for this provision was that when people make a move to an exempt position (usually upward to Directors, etc, but not always), they should make the leap to that position and there is a perceived alliance shift in the responsibilities of those positions. It was argued that being allowed to come back and perhaps bump a union person out of their position was not a good business practice. REVISION OF ARTICLE 17.2, PROVIDING MORE LAYOFF NOTICE FOR EMPLOYEES EFFECTED BY THE STATE S REORGANIZATION PLANS PRO This change does provide a little more notice (approximately two weeks) to those employees being slated for layoff due to reorganization plans. It s not a huge change, but it does provide a small amount of extra cushion so employees have more time to consider their options. CON No perceived con. Of course, more time for notice would be better yet. Page 7 of 7