CASTLETON — Members of the town Department of Public Works’ labor union have filed two unfair labor practice charges against Castleton on Sept. 10, accusing the town of “regressive bargaining” and asking the state to force the Select Board to use a neutral arbitrator — something the town allegedly refused to do.

In a letter submitted to the Herald from union representative David Van Deusen on Wednesday, the union claims Castleton Selectman Jim Leamy and the rest of the Select Board is refusing to enter into a new and fair contract with the DPW, even after the union agreed to nearly triple their health insurance contribution in exchange for a 2 percent raise in 2016 and 2017.

“Imagine for a moment that you were the person your neighbors relied on to be ready at a moment’s notice to clear the roads of ice ... that they would expect you to be at home, waiting by the phone, ready to forgo any personal business problems and head out the door in sub-zero temperatures to answer the call for help,” Van Deusen begins in his letter. “Now imagine your neighbors came to you and said they wanted to make deep cuts in your net pay going forward, and even refund them some of the money they have paid going forward and even refund them some of the money they have paid you over the past two years.”

“Despite the fact that many of these workers only earn $15 and change per hour (some as low as $11 and change), (James) Leamy wants them to accept drastic, deep cuts in the net money they use to support themselves and their families.”

The first charge alleges Castleton was engaging in “regressive bargaining” in the negotiating process that began in spring 2016, before the collective bargaining agreement that expired July 1 of that year.

According to the charge, there was a mediation between the town and the labor union in March 2017 where the town offered a two-year contract with a retroactive 2 percent wage increase effective July 1, 2016, and another 2 percent wage increase taking effect on July 1, 2017. During that mediation, the town wanted its share of health care cost to go down to 91 percent, starting on July 1, 2016, with employees retroactively paying the town back for their increased share. The town share would go down further to 86 percent on July 1, 2017, with the employees once again retroactively paying the town back for their increased share, all according to the charge.

Though the union initially accepted the agreement on the grounds that the majority of their employees wouldn’t suffer a net loss of income, their post-mediation calculations showed most of them would, so they rejected the town’s proposal, the charge said.

The parties continued going back and forth into 2018, when the town told the union that that it was “really” looking for an 80/20 split, to which the union answered that they wanted a 2 percent raise for 2016, a 2 percent raise for 2017, and for employees to pay 14 percent of their health care with none of the costs or raises being retroactive.

The town rejected the union’s proposal, and demanded an 80/20 health cost split, according to the charge.

In May, the union said it would agree to a 80/20 split if “certain economic conditions” were met in a supposal, which was rejected by Castleton, the charge said.

The town submitted its “last best offer” on Aug. 16: a 3 percent raise for 2018, an 80/20 healthcare split for 2018, flexible winter hours to avoid paying overtime, less vacation for new employees, and a possible CBA for 2019 with a 2 percent raise, which the union said was a regressive offer.

Melinda Moz-Knight, administrative assistant to the Vermont Labor Relations Board, said the town hasn’t responded to the first charge.

The second charge alleges the town is guilty of “bad faith bargaining,” stating that the previous CBA included ground rules for negotiations for the next CBA and a “recourse to arbitration,” or a legal pathway for negotiation if it was needed. The union requested that the town be ordered to commit to “binding arbitration” to resolve contract negotiations.

After the town rejected every proposal the union submitted, on Aug. 7, the union asked that the town and the union both go into arbitration over the matter, the charge said.

On Aug. 9, the town told the union it doesn’t “view itself bound to take part in arbitration” as a means to settle contract negotiations, according to the charge.

In February, the town threatened that if the union succeeded in “achieving their economic proposals,” the charge said, that it may terminate one or more employees, but the threat was over six months ago and has not been restated, therefore the union isn’t filing that charge.

The town answered the second charge 15 days later, demanding it be dismissed by the Labor Relations Board on the grounds that the town never agreed to any collective bargaining ground rules and that the ground rules document remains unsigned by either party, rendering it invalid.

The union argued the CBA ground rules document was in fact initialed by the union, even though the town didn’t sign it as an oversight.

Town Manager Mike Jones refused to comment on the charges. Multiple attempts made to contact Chairman Joe Bruno were unsuccessful.

“There are three routes they could possibly take from here,” said Timothy Noonan, executive director of the state Labor Relations Board. “It could be resolved by the parties, a complaint could be issued during or after the investigation, or the labor board could decide not to issue a complaint ... If a complaint is issued, a formal hearing would happen before the (labor) board, similar to a court proceeding.”

katelyn.barcellos

@rutlandherald.com

You must be logged in to react.
Click any reaction to login.
0
0
0
0
0

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.