AFSCME Council 24 Provides More Action and Advocacy

The arbitration results outlined below represent continued activity and advocacy by the Locals and Council 24 on behalf of our members.  Special thanks to Katy Krumm, Local 122, for her synopsis and comments:

Arbitration Results from 10/12/12

Stanley Correctional Institution 

Case #1

An employee received a 1 day suspension for allegedly violating ED #50. The employee had sent out a group email asking which staff members were interested in participating in a benefit for a former co-worker who had died and had pictures from a Green Bay Packers game that the employee attended which were being used as a screen saver. The union presented evidence that management , all the way up to Warden Wallace from CVCTF send out similar emails multiple times per year and that personal pictures are allowed if they are being used a screen saver. The union also argued that the 1 day suspension was not just because it was not progressive discipline. The arbitrator affirmed the union’s arguments and reduced the 1 day suspension to a letter of reprimand. The letter of reprimand may now be removed from the employees file on the 12 month anniversary of the date of the incident.

Case #2

An employee working a 7-3 shift was ordered for 2^nd shift overtime at 1300. Management at SCI forced another 1^st shift sergeant for the same position from 1400-1500 until the 7-3 sergeant finished their original shift and was available to work the ordered position. The union argued that the 7-3 sergeant was not eligible to be forced for overtime that occurred before the start of 2^nd shift because they were not eligible to sign-up and accept the overtime. A staff member may not accept or be forced for overtime that conflicts with their regularly scheduled shift. An SCI Captain went as far as to present untruthful statements to the arbitrator, claiming that he had ordered Sgt. Rose in the past in the same manner that this Sergeant was ordered. Those statements were proven false. The arbitrator affirmed the union’s position and awarded the grievant comp. time for the incident.

Case #3

An employee was forced for 3^rd shift overtime out of seniority order. An officer junior to the grievant left the institution without checking in with supervisors. SCI management stated that they would not affirm the grievance when it was originally filed because then they would have to write up the employee that left without checking in and didn’t want to do that, because then the union would grieve that discipline also. The union presented evidence that the employee was not the junior officer on shift and since he was forced at 2145 the need for overtime was known in plenty of time to notify the junior officer on shift. The arbitrator affirmed the union’s position and comp. time was awarded to the grievant.

　

Case #4

An employee was demoted without just cause. The union presented evidence that of the 3 staff involved only the grievant was disciplined. The union also presented evidence that the discipline was extremely excessive and not progressive. Management spent 4 hours attempting to sway the arbitrator with misinformation that was not relevant the grievance which was being heard. The arbitrator affirmed the union’s position and restored the grievant to the rank of Sergeant.

　

Case #5

An employee received a 1 day suspension for an incident that occurred 3 days from a similar incident. The union argued that the employer should have combined the two incidents since they happened 3 days apart and had the same mitigating circumstances. The arbitrator sided with management and upheld the discipline.

　

Case #6

An employee was denied 230.36 benefits. The union argued that the employee did everything correctly and should be made whole. Management argued that the employee should have re-submitted the forms several months after the incident when the employee was off work. The arbitrator sided with management and upheld the denial of benefits.

-----

Following commentary provided by AFSCME Council 24 Local 122 President Katy Krumm;

The golden question I get asked day in and day out is, “What can the union do for me?” All of the people involved in the cases above have been career-long union members. They know the Golden Question isn’t ,“What can my union do for me?” It is, “What would happen to me without my union?” Without the support that comes from being in a union, management would have had free reign to discipline these members anyway they saw fit, but the union was there to hold them accountable for their actions and see that everyone was given a fair shake. Being part of a union means that no one has to stand alone. We are all in this together and by standing together we can effect a change in our workplace, whether management wants to admit or not. We are the majority, we have the voice, and that voice is the power as long as we stand by each other.

 ###