-
Local 15 News
Exelon/ComEd vs Local 15
ARCOS Arbitration
Arbitrator Cox notified both parties that due to his heavy workload and the time required for analysis the Award will be finished some time next week or certainly by the following week.
We will get the decision out to you as soon as we get the Award
-
C H what is the problem with your arcos system are you guys fighting for it or against it ? We have had it at Dominion for several years now and it is a pain in the butt I was just wondering what was going on with yall
-
Discipline Up To And Including Termination For Not Answering The Phone A Certain Percentage Of The Time.
This Is Not In Our Contract And We Never Had A Problem Answering The Phone Before This Place Turned To Crap.
I Am Anticipating A Favorable Ruling From The Arbitrator Hopefully Soon.
-
It could be a LOOSE-LOOSE decision, if the union wins,,,,, the company will really turn up the heat on employees, if we loose, the company will really turn up the heat on employees.
-
C H here is how ours works we are required to keep a minimum 30% callout availiability percentage now we are always on call by a rotating callout list it works like this
1 lineman me i get called onthe first callout if i except
2 lineman is next unless #1 doesnt accept then it's his call
3 lineman is now next for the next call
4 lineman on down the line until all lineman have had a turn and the list continues! ARCOS for us is an automated overtime callout system that involves no humans you have an ID # that you punch in it tells you the trouble you accept or decline with your touchtone phone and if you accept it asks you for an estimated time of arrival
-
oops also forgot if you do not keep up with 30% you can face several steps of disipline starting with the following
#1 oral reprimand
#2 written reprimand
#3 decision making day
#4 termination
now this process is dictated by quarters once in the process you have to be below 30% for a quarter for it to start and continue another quarter for the next step so it actually takes about a year to get terminated also if you pull it up once you have kept it up for 4 quarters you are out of the process until you let it happen again
-
ARBITRATOR COX RENDERS HIS DECISION ON ARCOS GRIEVANCES
This morning the Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator James R. Cox was received in the Local 15 office. Evidently, the Company’s copy was delivered to their offices yesterday as management had a three page “Frontline” handout ready for the morning tailgate meetings across the company property. The following are excerpts from Arbitrator Cox’s Award:
THE ISSUE
The issue before the Arbitrator is whether there had been violations of various provisions of the Labor Agreement, other supplementary agreements identified below, past practice, and/or Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act when the Company unilaterally instituted ARCOS, a call-back system with a discipline component based upon response expectations, in summer 2003 and subsequently made changes in expectation levels without discussions with the Union. A substantial number of Employees have been disciplined under the new Policy which, as one of the discipline factors, considers the percentage of an Employee’s failures to respond to call out phone calls. Discipline is based upon the expectation that Employees will accept a minimum of 50% of all overtime call-outs and the program makes an Employee vulnerable to being charged with a decline in certain circumstances should he not answer the phone.
There is a threshold issue. The Company contends that the scope of the Grievance before me is limited to the issue of whether the imposition of the 50% call back expectation in July 2004 and subsequent discipline for failures to meet that expectation in circumstances set forth in the Plan violated the Agreement.
The Grievances challenge discipline under the expectancy standard.
The Parties request that, should the Arbitrator find that the new Program had been properly instituted and did not violate the Labor Agreement or the NLRA, he would have to consider whether the application of the Rule was proper and provide standards by which the parties could evaluate the pending grievances. They have also asked that the Arbitrator reserve jurisdiction for up to 180 calendar days following the date of this Decision in order to determine questions which may arise relating to implementation of the Award including any issues concerning the resolution of the many pending grievances which are to resolved based upon the standards set forth herein.
Applicable Contract Language
Article II, the Management Rights Clause states:
The management of the Company and the direction of the working forces covered herein, including the right to hire, suspend, discharge for proper cause, promote, demote, transfer and lay off because of lack of work or for other proper reasons, are vested in the Company, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement.
Article IV, Section 16 deals with certain stand-by situations:
“An employee ordered to remain at a specified location awaiting a call for emergency work outside
scheduled working hours shall be paid at the applicable rate until released.”
Article IV, Section 17 reads:
“As far as practicable overtime shall be distributed equally among
Employees in each Work Group or Job Classification taking into account the qualifications required and the availability of Employees…The Employee with the least amount of accumulated overtime hours within the Overtime Work Group or Job Classification shall be afforded the first opportunity to work overtime.”
Article V, Section 6 states:
“If the Company in writing requires an Employee to have a higher type of telephone service than the Employee now has, the Company will reimburse the Employee for the additional cost of the higher type phone.” The Union asserts that since the Company is requiring that Employees supply them with up to three phone contact numbers, they should pay for the cost that such means of response entails. Local 15 also says that encouraging an employee to upgrade his phone service in order to facilitate contact under the ARCOS System has the effect of imposing additional phone charges on Employees.
Article IV, Section 18 reads:
An employee called back (with or without notice) for work at any time outside of their regular work schedule shall be paid a minimum of two hours straight time pay and a call back allowance of two hours straight time pay.
Various Side letters were referenced.
A March 7, 1978 letter directed to Edward Crego, then Chairman of System Council U-25 by a Commonwealth Edison Vice President memorialized the fact that, as discussed during Labor/Management meetings in connection with a rest period provision, “The Company and Union each recognize responsibility to see that this provision is administered in a fair and equitable manner. The Company agreed to make improvements in the rest period provision on the basis that they will improve Employee response to overtime call-backs. Each Employee has a responsibility to respond to overtime call-backs. As discussed, it is understood that the System Council and individual Local Unions will encourage their Members to respond.”
A subsequent side letter dated April 14, 1982 from James Lockwood, then Chairman of System Council U-25, to Manager of Edison Industrial Relations Sanders, reads in part, “System Council U-25 recognizes that the Company as a public utility is required to furnish continuous service to its customers. System Council U-25 acknowledges the obligation of each
AWARD
The evidence establishes that ComEd did not violate the Contract, Past Practice or any binding local agreement when they unilaterally introduced the ARCOS call back program. The basic administrative features of that Plan do not violate any term of the Agreement. It is not unreasonable to set and maintain call back expectation goals and to calculate call back expectation based upon the factors set forth in the Plan.
Absent provisions for Company provided pagers or other reasonable method(s) of facilitating call out communication such as but not limited to those used by other Utilities. I find that it was unreasonable to discipline those employees who had responded to at least one call out in a quarter for failure to meet the 50% call out expectation. Their disciplines shall be rescinded and removed from their personal records. They shall be made whole for any loss of earnings. It was not unreasonable to discipline employees who failed to meet the lower expectations in effect from time to time in 2004. It certainly was not unreasonable to discipline those employees who did not respond to a single call out and who had not provided any acceptable explanation for their failures to respond to such phone call outs .
Considering the provisions of the ARCOS call back Plan including those associated with the discipline component, I have found the 25% expectancy to be reasonable even without additional communication aids. The detail in this Award should be of assistance in assessing the reasonableness of any expectancy standard beyond that level. The 2004 call back experience demonstrates that such a response goal is reasonably attainable without communication aids.
According to the Grievance summaries in ComEd Exhibit 43(a) there are many Grievances which have raised issues related to the administration of the Plan. As the parties have requested, I will retain jurisdiction for 180 days in connection with those or other ARCOS related Grievances.
Grievance granted in part.
James R. Cox
Arbitrator
Issued this 2nd day of March 2005
In his Award, Arbitrator Cox has determined that the fifty percent (50 %) Call Out rule established by the Company in its implementation of ARCOS as being unreasonable. He feels that a twenty-five percent (25 %) Call Out Response to be reasonable..
At this time, the 45 page document is being reviewed by the Union and its attorneys to explore any and all of our options. In the meantime, Local 15 President/Business Manager Bob Joyce has secured a meeting with the Company on Friday, March 4, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in the Union office to discuss Arbitrator Cox’s Award and its impact on the Local 15 members that are in the ARCOS discipline path.
-
Not a happy day,, less and less people are required to work more and more hours. Time-and-half, double-time is only that amount, if you consider your time at home with family and friends has "0" value. We the workers responded to call-outs, it is managements responsibility to maintain a reasonable number of employees, so the call outs are spread out between them. Those days are gone.
Will the company consider the 25% requirement, or stick to the 50%, ignoring the recommendation.
Local 15 Unit Meeting tonight I will see what new information, if any is available.
-
This Is A Sad Day For Local 15
-
According to our LU 15 President, and BA for our area, the 40 some page decision is in the hands of our union's attorneys. Possible appeals are being considered. The LU President and BA are meeting with the company this morning to discuss the ruling, and to see what the company has planned now. The atmosphere here, like in many utility companies these days is very tense, regard for humanity has been replaced with regard for greed, power, and elimination of the American Union worker.
Follow the procedures and rules,,,,, this is the only way to avoid discipline,,,,if you do,,,,you may stay clear of trouble,,,, the customer will not have power delivered/restored in a timely manner,,,,,, but management will, that is all they are concerned with, power.
Their ignorance of the day-to-day workings of their own employees, from a Crewleader to a Meter Reader is amazing. [ newest "tool" that may be required for meter readers to carry, to avoid dog bites,,,,,,, an umbrella !!!! God help us all ! ] Ignorance can be cured with knowledge, but stupid will always be stupid, and evil will always be evil. The Lord will punish the wicked, it is too bad that he gets all the satisfaction.