A local labor union
has dropped the Lawrence County jail's bargaining unit.
David Gettings,
newly elected president of the Lawrence County Prison Board, said Thursday that
all of the prison board members and the three commissioners received letters
dated Wednesday from Construction and General Laborers Union Local 964, saying
that it no longer will represent the 46 jail employees, "effective
immediately."
As far as the
attorneys representing the county know, such an action is unprecedented
anywhere — where a labor union refuses to no longer represent a bargaining
unit, Gettings said. "We are in uncharted waters."
County
administrator James Gagliano said Thursday that the county received
correspondence from the union saying "that is their intent." He would
not provide specifics as to the reasons, saying it is a personnel and legal issue.
Gagliano and the county's labor attorney, Michael A. Palombo of Pittsburgh,
have been involved in contract negotiations between the jail employees and
Local 964.
Attempts to reach
Palombo, county Solicitor Thomas W. Leslie and Local 964 general manager Don
Mangino were unsuccessful Thursday afternoon for information about why the
decision was made and what the ramifications will be for the jail employees who
were in the bargaining unit.
Their labor
contract had expired Dec. 31, and they had been working under the terms of the
previous contract before that. Now, according to Gettings, there apparently is
no contract at all.
Gettings said the
jail employees had voted on a new contract within the past two weeks, but they
rejected the proposed bargaining agreement by a 24 to 8 vote.
He said the letter
from the union was dated Jan. 18, and he believes it came as a surprise to
everyone on the prison board and the commissioners. He said no reason was given
in the letter as to why the union was decertifying the jail bargaining unit.
The prison board's
January meeting was Wednesday, when Gettings was elected to lead the board in
place of District Attorney Joshua Lamancusa, who held the position past couple
of years.
Gettings, who is
the county's elected controller, said, "We'll be going through the process
of finding out what this actually means" for the workers to not have a
contract at all.
"I'm not sure
I know what to pay these people," he said, adding, "that's one of the
large issues looming."
Another question is
what benefits they will receive, Gettings said. The county had proposed that
they change their insurance plans, which was one of the reasons for the no
vote.
"We're trying
to find out what this really means," Getting said of the union's action.
"I didn't see
it coming," he said.
He knew there was
some discontent between the two groups but the county didn't think it would get
to that point, he continued. "This is very unusual. We're in uncharted
waters. We don't know what, when, where or how.
The county as yet
does not know the full impact of the union's decision, he said.
"We don't have
a contract, so what does that mean?" Gettings queried. "There are
more unanswered questions than questions."
Gagliano last month
had said that a major bargaining issue in negotiations with three county labor
unions under Local 964 have been wages and health care benefits. The health
care plan the county offers is a Highmark PPO Blue plan which presents a
savings to the county over the Highmark health plan that the employees have had
under Local 964. The county has requested that the workers accept the county’s
plan, he said.
The court-related
and court-appointed employees bargaining units have accepted the proposal which
will save the county $50,000 a year under one bargaining unit alone, Gagliano
had estimated. If the jail employees would have opted for the county-issued
plan, it would mean considerably more savings, he said.
Source: New Castle News
No comments:
Post a Comment