|
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 02:38 PM by Divernan
And the way it reads to me, the town/employer is being far more generous than is required by law. Most National Guard soldiers called up to active duty aren't treated this well by their civilian employers. I am usually pro-union, but not in this instance. (And the Texas Federal District Court decision which the union's attorney is waving around would not be binding upon Massachusetts.)
"In response to the Town's offer, the Union submitted a revised proposal just prior to the Board's December 18, 2007 meeting. Under the revised agreement, Captain Campbell would receive any and all benefits that he would be entitled to receive if he were actively working. This would have included uniform allowance, cleaning allowance, EMT stipend, holiday pay and a number of other direct and indirect cost items. Given that the Town was already going to be faced with the cost of covering Captain Campbell's shifts on an overtime basis, the Board was concerned with the breadth of the Union's proposal. While the Board remained committed to assisting Captain Campbell and his family during his period of active military duty, the Board had to balance those sentiments against the economic cost to the Town. Ultimately, the Board elected to improve on its offer and agreed to include some, but not all, of the additional monetary benefits the Union was seeking. This was communicated to the Union on January 12, 2008 when the Town Manager forwarded a revised draft of the agreement that included some of the additional items the Union was seeking. In his cover memorandum to the Union, the Town Manager stressed the importance of wrapping up the matter as soon as possible in light of Captain Campbell's impending deployment.
On January 15, 2008, the Union's attorney, Joseph Sandulli, telephoned Town Counsel Joseph Fair and informed him that the Union had two (2) issues with the Town's revised agreement. The first concerned the Union's desire to be able to arbitrate any disputes that arose between the parties over the interpretation of the agreement. The other concerned a decision issued by a Texas Federal District Court which Attorney Sandulli asserted stood for the proposition that Captain Campbell was entitled to earn and accumulate vacation and sick leave days during his deployment. In light of the fact that there is an overtime cost to the Town typically associated with firefighters taking paid time off from work, the Town was concerned about the economic impact of this latest issue being raised by the Union. For this reason, the Town Manager and Attorney Fair spoke with the Union at the conclusion of the parties' January 16, 2008 successor contract negotiation session and inquired as to whether the Union would be willing to agree to a compromise. In essence, the Town would expressly agree to accept Attorney Sandulli's view of the law and allow Captain Campbell to accumulate vacation and sick leave days while he was on active military duty in exchange for the Union agreeing to forego some of the other financial extras it was seeking. Without any real deliberation, the Union rejected this proposal and stated that it would be willing to drop the arbitration clause, but it was not willing to modify its position that all benefits had to be included as part of the agreement. The lone exception to this was that the Union would agree that Captain Campbell would not be eligible while he was on active duty in Iraq to earn the additional personal days that a firefighter can earn for not calling in sick to work.
At its January 22, 2008 meeting, the Board considered the Union's stance and, after balancing the interests of all parties, reached the conclusion that what the Union was demanding was more than what it could agree to. The Board remained willing, however, to grant to Captain Campbell the difference in his base salary and allow him to continue on the Town's health insurance at the usual employee rate. This was in addition to any other benefits that he was entitled to receive under the law. The Board's position was subsequently communicated to the Union, but was ultimately rejected by it.
This is essentially where the parties have stood until February 7, 2008 when the Union, for the first time, proposed to help defray some of the cost of its proposal. The Town Manager forwarded the Union's offer to Attorney Fair for legal review, who subsequently discussed the matter with Attorney Sandulli on February 13, 14 and 15, 2008. Attorney Fair advised Attorney Sandulli on the last of these dates that he would discuss the matter with the Board at its next scheduled meeting, i.e., March 4, 2008. Prior to the Board having an opportunity to do so, however, your letter of February 17, 2008, and its accompanying mischaracterizations, threats and artificial deadlines, was received.
To the extent that you assert that the Board has "dragged its feet for two months," as the above history reflects, that is not the case. In fact, the Town has been trying for over two (2) months now to grant Captain Campbell the difference between his Town and military base salaries and continue his health insurance, but has been thwarted in those efforts by the Union. As you know, the Town is not required to provide these benefits and did not ask the Union or Captain Campbell to give up anything in exchange for Captain Campbell receiving them. The Board's position on the matter to date is one that is fair and reasonable to Captain Campbell, the Union, the Town and the citizens of this community and I am perplexed as to why the Union has refused to allow the Town to provide these important benefits to Captain Campbell and his family by persisting with its all or nothing approach to the situation.
As for the Union's most recent proposals aimed at reaching a resolution of this matter, I intend to review the matter with the Board at its next scheduled meeting on March 4, 2008, as Attorney Fair previously advised Attorney Sandulli would be the case. The Board remains committed to attempting to reach an agreement on this important subject matter that is fair to all parties concerned. The Board will not be bullied into making a decision by the Union's setting of artificial deadlines and threats of press conferences, however. The Board will consider the Union's latest proposal at its March 4, 2008 meeting and will respond to same by the close of business on March 5, 2008.
If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Richard Levine, Chairman Board of Selectmen Tags: Stoughton, rally, Iraq, fire fighter, (All Tags)
|