Changing Union Employee Hours against contract

HCA

In archives I found an article regarding upset employees after their hours were changed. It said:
"We had the exact same change approx. 3mths ago and although the EE's were not happy about it no one quit. . .
The ER has the right to change the hours without input from the EE's as long as you are a non-union workplace it may differ for Union."

We have a union. The contract says that the union recognizes the employers rights to schedule. Then it says the employees shall develop a schedule and it shall be approved by mgmt. If mgmt disapproves the new schedule, the old schedule remains. (We have had the same schedule for YEARS because no one ever approves the changes.) No employees are required to work days off except for manpower shortage, vacation, cutbacks, layoffs, or cases of emergency.

PROBLEM: Several months ago, two employees secretly got married and came back to work with a name change to following day. (it's how we knew.) They work the same schedule. It is the type of work (law enforcement) where they should not work together. It undermines her credibility and we are starting to have problems. Hubby has been an officer longer, but not much longer. He comes to her beck and call when he shouldn't because of their relationship. HOwever, often, they are the only two on duty together and must respond to the same calls. It creates a bad situation for us.
QUESTION: Can I force a schedule change? We already tried to get the employees to agree and it was a no go. We have any anti-nepotism policy so he does not supervise her, but we don't want them showing up at the same investigations together. Do I have to wait until it is a major problem (lose a court case or something) or can we make a managerial decision? Help. Anyone....

Don D

I'm surprised you didn't see the wedding coming if they were hanging together, showing up together at the same places, on duty at night together, the donut shop together........x:-)

Surely the municipality/chief/assignment officer has the authority to schedule these people. S Moll might know. She works in the same environment as yours. Put a microscope to your policies about shift/beat assignments and find an angle. Also look carefully at your management rights clause in the contract. Hopefully it is sufficiently broad.

HCA

I was hoping to rely on the mgmt clause too. But the language give us all the rights to direct, transfer, schedule, etc. And then at the bottom says, "Such rights are retained by the Employer unless such rights are specifically relinquished in this Agreement." ARGH!!!!

Whch brings me back to square one since I have that scheduling clause that says it reverts back to old schedule unless everyone agrees. To make matters worse, it's two year contract so we can't even open it back up for negotiation for another YEAR! I don't know if we can wait that long. Well, we CAN if we have to, but we don't want to obviously.

System

Your second paragraph that addresses the schedule is unclear. I interpret 'schedule' to mean 8-hour shifts, 12-hour shifts, or squad rotation; perhaps bi-weekly or 28-day schedules - not the work schedules of individuals. In your nepotism policy it apparently addresses a supervisor/subordinate work relationship, but it may have a clause that addresses 'a work relationship that creates or takes on the appearance of creating a conflict of interest.' I wouldn't hesitate to make the managerial judgement call. It's probably already a major prolem and you just don't know about it yet.

You must have 'reservation of rights' as an employer that allows you to operate the business of the local government in the matter of interest of public safety.

Crout

#1 Whoever allowed that kind of language into your contract should be fired. It completely undermines Management Rights. #2. You can argue about that language all day long, but it appears that the precedent has been well established. #3. You have some choices. You can either wait the year out and try to re-work the language at the next bargaining session, or go ahead and make the schedule change, then slug it out through the grievance process, which you may not win anyway. Hey, why not offer one of them a promotion and then mandate a schedule change through the nepotism policy? I'm only half-serious about that one.

Hunter1

Crout is right, it's absolutely horrible language. Who ever heard of the employees coming up with the schedule, and the only right management has is to disapprove it?

I wouldn't totally give up, though: Agreeing to a work schedule normally would be the over-all schedule, not individual assignment to the schedule. That may be determined by seniority, or some other method. If not, I might argue that I have the right to move individuals within the schedule.

Another thing you might try, although it has the downfall that the union might argue that they have the right to deny it, is to meet with the union rep, especially if your local union is affiliated with a larger union, and explain the situation to them and ask for their help.

OR, just announce the change for safety reasons; that you feel that these two individuals may not make the best decisions 'under fire', knowing their relationship, and move one or the other, and fight the good fight based on safety concerns. That may give you an edge with an arbitrator. Good Luck

P S Get that language changed.

System

HCA wasn't clear about the language used in reference to 'schedules.' I can't believe that any union has the right to design their own personal schedules. I still contend that schedule refers to lengths of shifts, rotations, and pay periods - not individuals.

Split them up and put them on different squads. You may fall on a sword one way or the other - I would pick the one for public safety and the least liability.

HCA

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-14-04 AT 02:31PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I could not agree with ALL of you more on the crappy language. AND letting THEM set it! SHEESH! Needless to say, it was WAY before my time. Here's the exact language: "Employees are placed on a three month work schedule. The schedule is posted three months in advance. The schedule is developed by the affected employees...After the schedule is developed the Sheriff shall approve or disapprove within ten days...If disapproved, the original schedule shall remain the same. All deputies are rotated equally based on seniority..."
In my opinion that is not just a "schedule" that I can argue it's just "shifts". I think it is the exact schedule of who works when.
This is a case of a supervisor who didn't want to supervise so he just let the employees do whatever. Now, we have a new supervisor with many of the same employees and many of the same problems.