City, union go public with grievances

VICTORIA BARBER

April 18, 2008 at 9:30AM AKST

Tensions mount between the city of Unalaska and Local 302 union representatives as the to parties head to mediation on April 21.

The city and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302 have struggled to finalize a new contract for City Hall, Public Works and Public Utilities, and Parks, Culture and Recreation workers for more than nine months.

The last several weeks have seen a mass sickout, a complaint filed with the Department of Labor against the union, a newspaper advertisement asking residents to support the union’s position and a widely circulated letter by City Manager Chris Hladick that accuses Local 302 business representative Carl Gamble of misleading union members and the public.

At the heart of the dispute is a disagreement between the city and the union over wage increases for the city’s most long-term employees.

A 10-step wage ladder was implemented in Local 302’s previous contract. In this wage system, an employee moves from one step to the next every year and receives a 3 percent wage increase each time until they reach step 10.

Once Local 302 employees reach their 10th year of employment, their increase drops to 1.5 percent per year. City officials say that 45 of the 73 Local 302 employees – about 60 percent – are at step 10.

While the wage ladder was instituted more than three years ago, a clause in the last contract placed all employees at step seven to start, and the 1.5 percent increase did not impact senior employees until last year.

In negotiating the new contract, the union is asking for a 3 percent annual increase to be offered to all Local 302 employees to keep pace with inflation, which in Anchorage was measured at 3.2 percent in 2006 and 2.2 percent in 2007.

The city has refused, citing rising costs in insurance premiums and retirement benefits and a budget pinched by inflation and a decreased pollock quota.

Local 302 has stated in press releases that a contract offer from the city was unanimously voted down by union members. At an impasse, Gamble contacted Hladick on March 17 to request that the city and union seek professional mediation to help both sides come to an agreement.

Mediation is scheduled to begin in Anchorage next week.

Work stoppage

On March 12, the union sent The Dutch Harbor Fisherman a press release stating, "City employees are hoping to avoid a work stoppage, but are increasingly frustrated with the city’s hard-line stance in negotiations."

The evening of March 17, Gamble was present at a union meeting in Unalaska. The next morning, about 70 of the city’s 73 Local 302 employees – just over half the city’s total workforce – called in sick to work.

In response to the sickout, city officials filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) complaint against the union on March 18, saying that the stoppage amounted to an illegal strike.

Under the Public Employment Relations Act, employees such as those in Local 302 are required either to exhaust mediation or hold a vote before striking. However, the act does not explicitly address sickouts.

The ULP, which is available by request through City Hall, asks for an injunction against unlawful work stoppages by the union and compensation for monetary losses.

Union representatives have declined to be interviewed about the union meeting or the sickout but issued a press release stating that the union "did not organize any kind of work stoppage."

Anchorage attorney William Mede is representing the city and has worked in collective bargaining cases for 28 years. He said that the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, a division of Alaska Department of Labor, first responds to ULPs with a preliminary investigation of whether there is probable cause to believe the act was violated.

Mede said that this internal investigation might take weeks or months to complete.

Grievances go public

In the meantime, both the city and the union have continued to publicize their frustration at the negotiation process.

Local 302 ran an advertisement in the April 3 issue of The Fisherman, saying that city employees felt "frustrated and disrespected" by the city’s refusal to grant 3 percent wage increases to its employees. The ad asks community members to call City Hall to voice their support.

The advertisement did not mention that some union employees are already offered a 3 percent raise.

Hladick, in turn, circulated recent correspondences between Gamble and himself to media and the public, stating that the "the public deserves to know the whole story."

In an April 8 letter, Hladick accused Gamble of deliberately misleading city employees about the terms of the city’s contract offer to "sway the public."

The letter states that city employees have approached Hladick saying Gamble hadn’t supplied them with documentation of the city’s offer before putting it to a vote.

The offer was unanimously voted down, but Hladick said that these "numerous employees" told him they didn’t know at the time of the vote that the city’s offer included a 3 percent increase for union members below step 10, that they would have to contribute towards monthly insurance premiums or that step 10 employees had been offered a $1,500 signing bonus.

Neither Gamble nor other union officials responded to questions about Hladick’s accusations by press time.

Retroactive pay

In the correspondence, Gamble objects to Hladick’s change in bargaining position after the two parties go to mediation.

At stake is more than nine months of retroactive pay for city employees, who have been working under their last contract until the new one is finalized.

Hladick said the city offered retroactive pay for union members as an incentive for the union to close the deal.

The change came on March 28, after both parties had agreed to mediation, when Hladick told Gamble that the offer of retroactive pay would be withdrawn if an agreement wasn’t reached by April 18, three days before mediation is to begin.

Gamble said in an April 4 correspondence that the change in position was "disturbing." He argues that the purpose of mediation is to have parties freeze their respective positions going into mediation, with the hopes that the mediator can help bring the two sides into agreement.

"In other words, the city will enter the mediation with a lesser offer than that being dangled now," Gamble writes.

"The presentation of a fluid position, much less a regressive position, in advance of mediation is not conducive to reaching an agreement either inside or outside the mediation process," Gamble said.

Related Downloads (pdf format):

April 3 issue of The Fisherman

Letter from the city

Victoria Barber can be reached at (907) 348-2424 or toll free at (800) 770-9830, ext. 424.