|
A
7806-1862-02 - Wayne County
|
|
| Issue: | Use of non-bargaining unit employees to perform bargaining unit work. |
| Result: | The
employer began utilizing "crews" from the alternative work force
program. These short-term employees were part of a court-ordered probationary
sentencing program. These employees were supervised by a "Crew Leader"
who performed the direct supervision. The program worked a seven day operation.
However, Local 1862 supervisors were only working a five day schedule. That
meant that, when they were called to supervise this program on weekends,
they would be paid overtime. In March, 2002, the county placed a freeze on hiring and overtime. The overtime for this program fell subject to that freeze. The work continued with these participants being supervised by other employees. Upon knowledge, the Union grieved. The employer argued no contract violation in that the foremen were not performing supervisor's duties. They claimed that no one was performing bargaining unit work. In making the decision, the Arbitrator cited How Arbitration Works, The determination of whether a transfer of work was permissible should be made on a case-by-case basis. In determining whether the employer may transfer job functions of employees in the bargaining unit to others outside it, arbitrators have considered such factors as: whether in the past the work had been performed exclusively by bargaining unit employees; whether displacement from jobs or loss of pay resulted from transfer of work; the effect on the bargaining unit; the amount of work involved; the legitimacy of the employer's reasons for the change; whether a change had occurred in the type of work being performed; whether the change was in response to changes in the economic climate; and whether the work transfer was caused by a reorganization or change in work methods or processes. In this case, the work had previously been exclusively performed by Local 1862 employees. The Arbitrator concluded, "Lost pay resulted when bargaining unit employees were denied the opportunity for overtime. The effect on the bargaining unit would be to erode it. The amount of work involved was significant, not de minimis, particularly considering that a decision for the employer would allow it to resume this conduct and further erode bargaining-unit work. . . . "Based on these factors, the employer's conduct could not be upheld, above and beyond the specific contractual requirements." The Arbitrator ruled that the employer's conduct was an attack on the job security of the bargaining-unit employees. The grievance was granted. |