County, union disagree on pay increase issue

|tab|

The Greene County Commission is preparing to address a dispute over a pay increase for county highway employees.|ret||ret||tab|

The commission heard testimony at its April 17 meeting from a union representing 63 workers in the county's Highway Department. Commissioners said they would respond to union concerns within a week or two.|ret||ret||tab|

The dispute regarding a wage increase for these county employees began in the fall of 1999, said Clark Brown, business manager of Service Employees International Union Local 50. At that time, the county proposed a step-pay plan that would align these particular employees with other county employees, most of whom are on a step-pay plan. |ret||ret||tab|

The union at that time asked for a larger increment in the yearly pay increases for the workers, Brown said, but the step-pay proposal was then rescinded.|ret||ret||tab|

Unions representing public employees in Missouri are in a different situation than those representing private-sector employees, Brown said. |ret||ret||tab|

The county and union participate in a meet-and-confer process, but there is no contract reached at the end of that process, nor is there any requirement for the number of times the union and county must meet, said Theodore Johnson, attorney for the county.|ret||ret||tab|

"The county has the authority to meet and confer, agree to certain proposals and then change their mind. There is no contract agreement, and the county can adapt and change its plans as it needs to," Johnson said. Also, public employees cannot strike.|ret||ret||tab|

The county's final proposal to the union was to give most of the employees a 2 percent increase during 2000 and a 2 percent increase for 2001. Mechanics received a 5 percent raise in 2000 and a 2 percent raise in 2001. The county and the union meet and confer every two years, Brown said. |ret||ret||tab|

The union rejected the county's final offer, which would have gone into effect in January, and Brown said his research indicates these particular employees are now about 11 percent below the pay scale of comparable employees in other areas.|ret||ret||tab|

Despite the union's rejection of the offer, the pay increases went into effect in April, and the employees received back pay from Jan. 1, when the increases were to have taken effect. In the meantime, the workers voted on whether to maintain the union.|ret||ret||tab|

"A de-certification petition was filed in January, and we held an election in March, basically asking if the employees still wanted the union to represent them. We were told then that, yes, the employees still wanted us to represent them," Brown said.|ret||ret||tab|

Among Brown's concerns is a document circulated by county officials prior to the union re-election. |ret||ret||tab|

"We believe that document contains language that says if the employees were nonunion, they would receive a greater pay increase," Brown said.|ret||ret||tab|

The document explains where the employees would fall in the county's existing compensation plan if they were no longer represented by the union, Brown said. He added that the union thinks the response was inappropriate and possibly actionable in civil court.|ret||ret||tab|

Johnson said the document was a question-and-answer sheet provided to employees in response to specific questions that had been asked of the county.|ret||ret||tab|

"It's my understanding that the questions and answers were accurate and appropriate to the situation," Johnson said.|ret||ret||tab|

Johnson added that Brown "has argued the information in the question-and-answer sheet was trying to influence the election. I disagree with that interpretation. The plan discussed in that document only guaranteed the workers an additional 1 1/2 percent pay increase per year instead of the 2 percent offered."|ret||ret||tab|

Brown interprets the document as extending a 5 1/2 percent increase to workers.|ret||ret||tab|

Despite the current debate, Brown acknowledges that the county met its obligations to the union.|ret||ret||tab|

"They did follow the meet-and-confer policy, and we were made aware of their offer in a timely manner. We do have the ability, as a union, to appeal to the elected officials, and in this case we have," he said.|ret||ret||tab|

The union will now wait to see what the commission provides in response to its concerns, but it may further investigate the question-and-answer sheet.|ret||ret||tab|

"We're looking into our options right now. Our attorney is looking at it, and we're waiting to see where we can go," Brown said.|ret||ret||tab|

This case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, so the union's recourse would be to pursue a civil lawsuit, Brown said, "And we're not there yet. We don't yet know if that's where we can go, but we'll continue to look into it."[[In-content Ad]]