UN Reasoning: Makes sure special masters are really neutral in the eyes of labor and casino management.

Transcription

1 Subject, Section and Highlights of MERO Proposed Amendments and Objectives Definitions, 4 added definitions of MERO Board Special Master Business Agent and Person Objective: Streamlining and clarity. Identity and position of individual/entity raising issue. UN= Unions representing Tribal employees; MPGE = MPGE; OLC = Tribe Re: Special Master UN proposed addition: Special Masters authorized to hear cases brought by a person against a Labor Organization or Tribal Employer shall be selected from a group of ten or more individuals jointly recommended by labor organizations who represent Tribal Employees, and the Tribal Employer MERO response to public comments, MERO position and/or proposed changes or additional amendments Currently (no change proposed by MERO in amendments), special masters are appointed by the Tribal Court and required to be impartial and to have substantial experience in labor relations and labor law and experience or advanced training in Tribal law. See, MPLRL, 7 and Proposed Amendments, 4(o). UN Reasoning: Makes sure special masters are really neutral in the eyes of labor and casino management. Acts Prohibited by Unions, 6(b)(3) Re: prohibition against Union discrimination added or any other basis protected under Tribal law OLC proposed substitute for 4(o): Special Master means a qualified impartial person with substantial experience as a decision maker in the resolution of labor disputes and who has experience in or has attended training in Tribal law. The special master shall be designated in each matter by the Tribal Court selecting from a panel of special masters appointed by the Tribal Council. No comments submitted. Objective: To account for additional Tribal employment laws that may be enacted

2 Prohibited Practices, 7 (b) Introduces new 180 day statute of limitations. Previously there was no time limit for filing. No comments submitted. Objective: Gives parties time deadline for raising issues so evidence does not get stale, witnesses are still available, etc. Protection of employee due process, 9(a) Language clarified. No comments submitted Objective: To be consistent with Title 8 amendments re option for bargaining unit employees to select collective bargaining agreement dispute resolution process or Board of Review process. Elections, 12(b) Changed obligation to review the election petition, verify the labor organization s showing of interest and certify its compliance with law from the MERO Board to the MERO Director. Objectives: (1) The administrative function is moved to the agency s administrator, with whom petitioners are required to file the petition and showing of interest and who is charged with maintaining the official case record; (2) A full MERO Board review provided by the original language would UN Proposed addition: Prior to reviewing the showing of interest, the MERO Director shall give the Labor Organization the opportunity to request that such review be by a special master or the presiding officer of the MERO Board. Upon such request, the MERO Director shall not verify the showing of interest but shall forward it to the special master or the MERO Board. UN Reasoning: Unions had previously raised issues concerning the MD and showing of interest. This allows unions with concerns (or who are afraid employees might have concerns) to make the choice. Certain constituencies have previously expressed the belief that the MERO Director is employed by the Tribe and therefore not neutral. The MERO does not support the change proposed by the Unions; however, if it is adopted, consideration should be given to revising 12(a) to allow for submission of a showing of interest after the submission of a petition

3 include the Tribal Employer representative, and such information is not appropriate to disclose to an employer; (3) By moving the function to the MERO Director, in those cases in which agreement can be reached regarding an election, there may be no need to involve a MERO Board or Special Master. Elections, 12(h) Appeals to Tribal Court of pre-election and post-election matters decided by a MERO Board or Special Master are permitted only after the final MB/SM decision in the case, unless a party can demonstrate that the inability to appeal earlier would be prejudicial. Objective: To avoid election delays by limiting the opportunities to take an appeal midstream. MPGE - Not in favor of eliminating or limiting the right to take pre-election appeals to Tribal Court. MPGE Reasoning: Certain types of issues, such as unit scope, should be appealable immediately to avoid redundancies/multiple elections, eliminate delay and confusion about legal requirements for interactions with employees in questioned/challenged categories. If the concept is not abandoned or modified, consider establishing a low standard for determining prejudice. Added language is confusing and cumbersome. Allowing interim appeals without restriction encourages parties to appeal for purposes of delay. The proposed amendment was further revised to be less confusing and provide for the MERO Board or Special Master in a particular case to authorize an interim appeal. OLC Comment: The proposed changes that hold an appeal to Tribal Court until a final case decision has been made may result in redundant elections if there are issues prior to an election that cannot be heard. This would not only be costly, but would cause unnecessary delays and disruptions. Decertification Elections, 13 Language No comments submitted

4 revised to clearly provide for opportunity for hearing and to change standard for decertification from a majority of the bargaining unit to a majority of the valid votes cast. Business Agent Licensing, 15(a) No amendment initially proposed. Labor Organization Registration and Business Agent Licensing, 15(c) Added monetary amount to penalties that may be imposed ($250 per violation per day) and included failure to register labor organization with Office of Legal Counsel as a category for which the MERO Director may assess a penalty after investigation. Objectives: (1) To include a remedy for violation of the labor organization registration requirements and (2) to provide specific authority regarding the level of penalties that may be assessed by the MERO Director for violations of the business agent licensing provisions and labor organization registration requirements. Claim Processing, 7 (a)(d)(e); 10(c); 12(b)(c)(e)(h)(i) consolidated procedures for administrative processing, including appeals, UN Proposed addition: However no such penalty may be imposed with respect to any violation set forth in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) of 15 without the MERO Director first giving the violator notice of the violation and an opportunity to cure it. UN Reasoning: Prior notice mitigates the harshness of the provision. 16(a)(4) UN Proposed addition re MERO Director decisions to be subject to appeal to the Special Master or MERO Board. Subsequently the MERO proposed an amendment to change the licensing requirement to a bi-annual basis. No comments were received. The draft has been amended to address the comments of the Unions, with the addition of notice and comment language also applicable to a failure to register under 14 (labor organization registration). Specific reference to the MERO Director was removed to allow for notice by the Office of Legal Counsel under 14. The language was revised to provide for appeal of MERO Director 16(a)(4) decisions to a MERO Board, Special Master or the Tribal Court, as applicable

5 and moved to end of law, new 16 and 17. Objective: (1) To consolidate and streamline processing provisions and delete redundancies; (2) To include a new option for individuals who file petitions or charges to elect a special master rather than being forced to accept a MERO Board with its associated costs, through the request of another party; (3) To account for cases that involve more than 2 parties; (4) To more fully articulate the authority of the MERO Director in case processing. In addition, 16(d)(2)(B) reflects availability of MERO funding for individuals who demonstrate financial need under the means test. 16(a)(4)(a) UN Proposed deletion of authority of MERO Director to rule or act upon any issues prior to referral of the case to a Special Master or MERO Board. UN Reasoning: This is new and extremely broad and too disruptive of the careful balance set by current law. MPGE Proposed limitation to MERO Director authority to administrative decisions. MPGE Reasoning: Authority vested in MERO Director as phrased is very broad. 16(b) UN Proposed addition in introduction to account for possibility that individual may request a special master, although language is limited to 7. UN Reasoning re 16(b) proposal: Our suggestion needed to carry out prior draft s intent under section 7. 16(b)(4) UN Proposed NEW provision: At any time prior to the convening of the first hearing on any matter, the parties may agree that all decisions shall be by the presiding officers, and that any party-appointed MERO Board members may be excused. In such case any partyappointed MERO Board members will be excused and all authority of the MERO Board shall be exercised by the presiding officer. The Tribal Employer shall agree to any Union and MPGE concerns about the scope of the MERO Director s authority have been addressed by including the opportunity to appeal a MERO Director decision. Individuals as parties are addressed in new 16(d). The option to vest authority in the Presiding Officer is currently available by mutual agreement, therefore additional language is unnecessary. To the extent the proposed language allows a single party to decide to centralize decision making authority in election cases, the right to have election issues heard by the full panel outweighs the possibility of additional expense or scheduling complications

6 such request in any matter under 12 where all involved labor organizations agree. UN Reasoning re 16(b)(4): In general allows the parties together to decide to use single member panel. In representation cases, let s union decide to avoid unnecessary expense and scheduling complications. 16(b)(5) ( 16(b)(4) in MERO Draft) : UN Proposed addition to limit provision to any matter in which party appointed MERO Board members have not been excused and there are only two parties to the proceeding. Union proposals re 16(b)(5) and (6) are unnecessary. The MERO s proposed language is not contingent on the number of MERO Board members. 16(b)(6) UN Proposed NEW provision: in any matter in which there are more than two parties in which party appointed MERO Board members have not been excused, only the Presiding Officer shall vote on any issue. UN Reasoning re 16(b)(6): This addresses the problem that majority rule works only when there are only two party arbitrators and one neutral. 16(b)(8) ( 16(b)(6) in MERO Draft) UN Proposed modification to eliminate fine and provide that if a party does not make a timely selection, the party shall waive any right to participate in the selection of the presiding officer. UN Reasoning: The fine seems excessive. Normally The MERO Director agrees that the MERO Board selection issues are better addressed through a procedural downside rather than a fine; however, the Unions proposal would advantage the charging party or petitioner, who could default, then withdraw the claim or petition and re-file, thereby not experiencing any - 6 -

7 would handle with procedural downside to negligent party as suggested, rather than a fine. MPGE Proposed modification to provide up to maximum penalty and decrease maximum penalty to $1000. Offending party also should be provided notice of the deficiency and the opportunity to cure it before incurring a penalty. MPGE Reasoning: Potential penalty is too high. In the event of an oversight, the offending party should be provided an opportunity to correct prior to the assessment of penalties. OLC Comment: Five thousand ($5,000) a day is a very large fine if a party does not timely appoint a MERO Board member. While the importance of a timely selection is not questioned, it does not appear to justify such an excessive fine. 16(d)(2) UN Proposed addition to limit the ability of an individual to request a special master to prohibited practice proceedings under 7 of this act. MPGE Proposed deletion of individual s ability to elect a special master if another party prefers a MERO Board MPGE requests consideration of other methods of cost sharing such as petitions in ramifications of the default. The MERO s revised language provides that absent the grant of an extension of time or selection of a MERO Board member, a party is in default. A notice of default and time to cure is provided. If a party does not timely cure the deficiency, the party may not participate in the selection of the Presiding Officer (who must nevertheless be a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators). A notice of default survives withdrawal and re-filing. As written, the draft provides that individuals would be able to elect a special master for elections and prohibited practice proceedings even if another party prefers a MERO Board. ( 16(d)(2)(A)) Under the Union s proposal, opposed by MERO, an individual who files an election petition, such as for a deauthorization or decertification election, could be forced to utilize a MERO Board and incur the associated costs. The MERO believes MPGE s approach that the MERO or another party absorb the individual s costs if a party to the case prefers a MERO Board does not adequately address the issues. MERO funding for individuals who - 7 -

8 forma pauperis or giving the other party/parties the option of paying for the individual s portion if a MERO Board is desired. Alternatively, if the concept is not changed, consider adding language clarifying an individual s rights. demonstrate financial need is now available, but for those individuals who do not meet the means test, a MERO Board may nevertheless be cost prohibitive and/or the costs may dissuade an individual from filing. In addition, the objectivity of MERO Board members may be called into question if one party is funding the proceeding. Enforcement in Tribal Court, 17(d) No amendment initially proposed Sovereign Immunity, 7 (e) Moved to the end in new 18. No comments. The draft has been amended to clarify the provisions and to provide for investigation of individually filed prohibited practice claims at the MERO Director s discretion in new 16(d)(1), with the parties retaining the right to proceed to a MERO Board or Special Master after the MERO Director issues a decision. New proposed amendment to (1) allow for appeals of MERO Director decisions or assessments ( 17(b)) and (2) permit enforcement actions for MERO Director, MERO Board or Special Master orders.( 17(c)) - 8 -