|
Toledo
Blade…
Bell: City of Toledo
knew union contract not affordable
Teamsters’
attorney claims Toledo’s cash woes irrelevant
By Jim Provance, Blade Columbus Bureau Chief
COLUMBUS -- Toledo Mayor Mike Bell Thursday told a state
labor-relations judge that he knew the city couldn’t afford a proposed
new contract with trash and sewer workers when he returned the
agreement to the union unsigned last year.
“[We] had just balanced, for the most part, a $48 million deficit, and
this particular agreement was coming in after that, saying that we
needed to be able to provide raises and other similar types of things,
which would go against the direction that we just attempted to
stabilize inside our city,” Mr. Bell said.
The attorney for Teamsters Local 20, however, argued that Toledo’s
financial condition was irrelevant given that the issue before the
administrative law judge was whether the city committed unfair labor
practices.
The union is asking the State Employment Relations Board to issue a
cease-and-desist order against the city and to require it to make the
affected employees whole.
Administrative Law Judge Beth A. Jewell is expected to issue her
recommendation within two weeks, but the final decision will be made at
a public meeting of the three-member SERB board.
“Finances have never been a defense to an unfair labor practice
proceeding,” Teamsters’ attorney John Roca said. “Otherwise, what good
is a contract? What good is it to prohibit the repudiation of contracts
and refusal to sign if an employer can use the defense that, ‘Yeah, I
agreed to it, but, um, it’s too expensive?’ “
At issue is a new three-year contract with the union representing about
140 workers employed by the city, negotiations for which reached an
impasse last year.
The dispute went before a third-party fact finder who acknowledged
Toledo’s precarious financial situation but went on to recommend either
a 2 percent pay raise in the second year of the pact or a 3 percent
hike in the third.
Among other things, the fact finder’s report also rejected the city’s
request that workers pay their entire share of their pension
contributions, 10 percent of their wages. Under the prior contract, the
city picked up 8.5 percentage points of that 10 percent employee share.
It took two votes on different days to reach the super-majority
necessary, but city council ultimately rejected the fact finder’s
report.
“If we had approved it, we would not have met payroll the following
Friday,” Council President Wilma Brown said.
The union, however, accepted the fact finder’s report and argued that
council’s second rejection vote was invalid because an agreement
between the two sides provided for “a” vote on the pact, not multiple
votes.
The city instead presented the union with its final best offer, which,
among other things, provided for 1 percent raises in each of the three
years and required the workers to pay their full share of the pension
contribution. When the union rejected that offer, the city implemented
it anyway.
Each side contends that the pact it approved is the valid contract.
Read the rest of the story at The Toledo Blade:
|
|
|
|
