Bargaining and Grievance Update

2701 W. Patapsco Ave. | Suite 110 | Baltimore MD 21230 | Phone: 410-247-3311 | Fax: 410-247-3197

CEED Grievances

I must report to you that grievances in the CEED division keep producing positive results for members.

The first case involves a member who had a supervisor who disciplined the employee in writing for an alleged attendance problem. Now normally Local 2111 advises the employee to file a grievance whenever the employee receives discipline on any level. At the first level grievance we sought the removal of the disciplinary letter because management failed to produce documentation to support their claims, namely attendance exception reports supporting their position. The manager refused. So we appealed this case to second level. During the course of preparing this case for second level we produced through the discovery process evidence of this supervisor ignoring certain policies of the college. We took the position that if this supervisor was willing to skirt certain fiduciary policies of the college what would stop them from producing false claims in this case. When pursuing a case such as this we also ask for a report from management outlining a complete history of the attendance exception reports submitted to payroll. This gives us an idea about the veracity of management's claims. With all of this information we sat down to the second level grievance and presented our case. During the course of meeting, management produced the documents requested and gave us some time to sort them out during a brief recess. Upon returning to the meeting management then produced its evidence. The claims of the supervisor relating to missed attendance question were scuttled when upon review of the evidence that was requested by the union (the attendance exception reports) and presented by H.R. not minutes before, we demonstrated with their own documents that the manager's claims were not supportable. Basically the supervisor claimed that the employee had missed such and such date and when checked against the evidence presented by senior management there was no report submitted to the payroll department listing the days supposedly missed. The manager further claimed that acts of insubordination were also committed by the employee on certain dates. However, when the union asked for dates and times of the disciplinary meetings that are required to be held in the presence of a steward concerning these charges, management could not produce any evidence supporting their claim. Further discussion and review of documents at this hearing produced one other interesting result. We discovered that this employee's evaluation was posted on a date prior to March 30. At that time, the date that evaluations could be submitted could not precede this date. As a result the entire grievance was sustained for the employee and the Union . The employee had their file cleared of all grievous material, all charges were dropped and had their evaluation pulled and reissued with a meets expectations.

The second and third cases that I wish to bring to your attention involve members who were being paid for one type of job and doing work outside of the original job they were hired for. Both cases had been hired in a support role and because CEED did not hire an individual to take a lead role in those specific areas these members stood up to help, assuming that lead role after certain promises were made to make them think that they would be advanced permanently to the lead roles. These outstanding members did the work required and were lied to. They stood up to help the institution when the institution was in need. Only when their patience and good will had completely expired, only when the truth was exposed to be nothing more then flaccid promises did they stand up for their rights and seek justice from this situation. Enter Local 2111. We advised the members to file a grievance seeking compensation from the institution. In both cases, these individuals had demonstrated complete command of the lead role job and created FTE's as well as growing their programs. They were both rebuffed by management at the first level grievance and we proceeded to the second level grievance meeting. At that meeting we were able to demonstrate to senior management (HR) that the employees had tried to work with management of CEED to advance to the upper level job. We were able to prove thru various documents that these employees had dutifully submitted PQ's and were told they were be advanced by senior management of CEED. They were to find out later that the senior management at CEED pulled their PQ's and did not inform them. On top of that, after the process of review had completed it cycle, these members were told that HR had rejected their submissions. Blaming HR seemed to fit a modus operandi that we find all to often around this institution when it comes to the PQ process (by that we mean that supervisors rarely want to be the bad guys and be honest with their employees by telling the truth that they don't support the employee's PQ or that they really never intended to advance the employee as in this case). Now as a result of our effort the grievances were sustained for the employee and the Union . Both employees have been duly compensated for past due work and continue to receive the corrected pay amounts due them per the companies stated policies.

PREVIOUS UPDATES

The Sandy Pelath Story

GRIEVANCE

	GRIEVANCE UPDATES

	CEED Grievances I must report to you that grievances in the CEED division keep producing positive results for members. The first case involves a member who had a supervisor who disciplined the employee in writing for an alleged attendance problem. Now normally Local 2111 advises the employee to file a grievance whenever the employee receives discipline on any level. At the first level grievance we sought the removal of the disciplinary letter because management failed to produce documentation to support their claims, namely attendance exception reports supporting their position. The manager refused. So we appealed this case to second level. During the course of preparing this case for second level we produced through the discovery process evidence of this supervisor ignoring certain policies of the college. We took the position that if this supervisor was willing to skirt certain fiduciary policies of the college what would stop them from producing false claims in this case. When pursuing a case such as this we also ask for a report from management outlining a complete history of the attendance exception reports submitted to payroll. This gives us an idea about the veracity of management's claims. With all of this information we sat down to the second level grievance and presented our case. During the course of meeting, management produced the documents requested and gave us some time to sort them out during a brief recess. Upon returning to the meeting management then produced its evidence. The claims of the supervisor relating to missed attendance question were scuttled when upon review of the evidence that was requested by the union (the attendance exception reports) and presented by H.R. not minutes before, we demonstrated with their own documents that the manager's claims were not supportable. Basically the supervisor claimed that the employee had missed such and such date and when checked against the evidence presented by senior management there was no report submitted to the payroll department listing the days supposedly missed. The manager further claimed that acts of insubordination were also committed by the employee on certain dates. However, when the union asked for dates and times of the disciplinary meetings that are required to be held in the presence of a steward concerning these charges, management could not produce any evidence supporting their claim. Further discussion and review of documents at this hearing produced one other interesting result. We discovered that this employee's evaluation was posted on a date prior to March 30. At that time, the date that evaluations could be submitted could not precede this date. As a result the entire grievance was sustained for the employee and the Union . The employee had their file cleared of all grievous material, all charges were dropped and had their evaluation pulled and reissued with a meets expectations.	The second and third cases that I wish to bring to your attention involve members who were being paid for one type of job and doing work outside of the original job they were hired for. Both cases had been hired in a support role and because CEED did not hire an individual to take a lead role in those specific areas these members stood up to help, assuming that lead role after certain promises were made to make them think that they would be advanced permanently to the lead roles. These outstanding members did the work required and were lied to. They stood up to help the institution when the institution was in need. Only when their patience and good will had completely expired, only when the truth was exposed to be nothing more then flaccid promises did they stand up for their rights and seek justice from this situation. Enter Local 2111. We advised the members to file a grievance seeking compensation from the institution. In both cases, these individuals had demonstrated complete command of the lead role job and created FTE's as well as growing their programs. They were both rebuffed by management at the first level grievance and we proceeded to the second level grievance meeting. At that meeting we were able to demonstrate to senior management (HR) that the employees had tried to work with management of CEED to advance to the upper level job. We were able to prove thru various documents that these employees had dutifully submitted PQ's and were told they were be advanced by senior management of CEED. They were to find out later that the senior management at CEED pulled their PQ's and did not inform them. On top of that, after the process of review had completed it cycle, these members were told that HR had rejected their submissions. Blaming HR seemed to fit a modus operandi that we find all to often around this institution when it comes to the PQ process (by that we mean that supervisors rarely want to be the bad guys and be honest with their employees by telling the truth that they don't support the employee's PQ or that they really never intended to advance the employee as in this case). Now as a result of our effort the grievances were sustained for the employee and the Union . Both employees have been duly compensated for past due work and continue to receive the corrected pay amounts due them per the companies stated policies.

	PREVIOUS UPDATES The Sandy Pelath Story

GRIEVANCE UPDATES