|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||
 |
         
|
 |
Union News Teamsters Local Union 320 Local 320 Wins Layoff and Recall Case in Nobles County Teamsters Local 320 recently won an important case in Nobles County that involved layoff and recall rights. The County laid off four employees, and then ignored the contract requirement to recall them when positions became available. The Nobles County labor contract specifically requires the County to place laid off employees on a recall list for 90 days. During that time, it must recall the employees in the inverse order of layoff provided they are able to perform the work of the position to which they are called without any further training. The contract prohibits the County from hiring new employees in bargaining unit positions as long as there are qualified employees still on the recall list. Nobles County laid off four members of this bargaining unit in 2003. Two of those members chose not to exercise their recall rights. Although positions were posted that the other two members were qualified to perform, they were not recalled by the County. Thus, Local 320 Business Agent Janet Straub immediately filed a class action grievance against Nobles County. The County had shown contempt for the layoff and recall provisions of the contract from the moment it began laying employees off. It even tried to argue that once a person was laid off, they were no longer an employee of the County and therefore were not entitled to recall rights. But the County's worst action came when two of the laid off employees applied for a position that became available. The employees were advised by Business Agent Straub to apply for the position because the County had already indicated to her that it did not intend to abide by the contract. The County actually sent letters to these employees telling them that it had decided not to fill the position – and then hired someone from a different bargaining unit to fill it. At the arbitration hearing, the County argued that the Union did not have a right to file a class action grievance on behalf of its members. It also claimed that when it received the grievance it had no idea who the affected members might be, even though there were only a few members on the recall list at the time. Strangely, the County also offered the contradictory argument that it did follow the recall procedure in the contract, but had determined that the laid off members were not presently qualified for the open positions. This was a radical change from what the County had conveyed to the Union before the hearing. Arbitrator Sara D. Jay didn't buy the County's story. She agreed that the Union had a right to file class action grievances on behalf of its members. She also ordered the County to abide by the contract language. Each grievant received back pay as part of the award. Additional Articles Waseca County Deputies Interest Arbitration Award Local 320 Wins Layoff and Recall Case in Nobles County 2004 Minnesota Legislative Summary U of M Board of Regents Briefs Members on State, Local 320 Wins Shift Differential Case At The University of Minnesota
|
 |
 |