|
AT&T Plans To Ignore Seniority |
|
Monday, 23 October 2006 |
|
Dear Brothers and Sisters, As President of CWA Local 3250, I have an obligation to ensure that the Company adheres to our contract and that they administer our agreement correctly. In the past, the Company has hired term employees while we have members that were laid off and are still on recall. Although, Article 24.3(e) gives the Company the ability to engage employees as term or temporary employees in the event of an emergency, or to meet peak loads, we have protested this practice and requested that the Company hire terms from the recall lists in seniority order. The Company came back and flatly rejected our proposal.
The Company went ahead with the hiring of term employees without regard to seniority and although we protested this practice, it still was more acceptable than the hiring of contractors. When we did request the reason terms were being hired, I was told, along with the area Vice President that this was to meet peak loads in a District at 2800 Century Center in GCA 323.
In Article 3 – Definitions, our contract with AT&T, states that "A term employee is a regular employee who is engaged for a specific project or for a limited period of normally not less than one (1) year nor more than three (3) years…." and "Term employees shall be treated the same as regular employees except that:
1. They are not eligible to participate in Tuition Assistance and,
2. The provisions of the following Articles shall not apply to term employees:
o I Article 25 (Termination Payments)
o II Article 26 (Technological Displacement)
o III Article 27 (Reassignment Pay Protection Plan)
o IV Article 31 (Employees In Military Service) except as noted in Article 31
As you can see, term employees for all other contract Articles are to be treated the same as regular employees and fall under the same rules and agreements. The Company has no right to set up a separate group consisting of term employees and, treat them differently or give them preferential opportunities that are not afforded to regular full time employees and certainly not outside of the parameters set forth by our contractual agreement.
Well it seems that is exactly what the Company has engaged in today. They have made a unilateral and arbitrary decision to move 13 term employees from GCA 323 to GCA 324 without any solicitation of the existing rank and file. These positions were not offered to any other employee in the titles involved nor was any regard to seniority considered.
As the Contract clearly states, except for Articles 25, 26, 27 and 31, terms are covered by all other articles in the contract the same as regular employees which includes Article 16 – Transfers, Travel Allowances and Moving Expenses, Article 28 – Seniority, ATS-AT&T Transfer and Rehire System, and letter (BB) – Term Employees.
Why didn’t the Company post these job openings or solicit the rank and file by seniority to fill these positions? The terms are our brothers and sisters and are part of the rank and file, but the Company cannot treat them as a separate entity to be moved across GCA’s to fill jobs at the Company’s whim while violating our contractual agreement. This violates our senior member’s rights who may have wanted to bid on a job in GCA 324 but now are denied this opportunity by the Company’s arbitrary actions.
Is this another Pandora’s box that will be opened to undermine the collective rank and file by the Company establishing a separate group to be moved around the region while ignoring our member’s seniority rights and contractual agreements? We are challenging this movement of terms outside the rules set forth by our contractual agreement; the Company must abide by our agreement.
We cannot recall any situation involving terms, with the Company moving them after they were assigned to a specific Districts peak load, and then packed up and moved across GCA’s without regard and consideration to our contract. Management is attempting to redefine our agreement by ignoring the seniority rights of all regular full time employees.
We don’t want to see any member or employee be forced off the payroll and we have no input or say in that decision, but we do have an obligation to force the Company to abide by the agreement they signed with our Union. The Company has a legal obligation to administer our contract and this we will force them to do.
We will keep you informed of any new developments or progress we obtain regarding this issue.
Remember, in unity there is strength
Roy Hegenbart
President
CWA Local 3250
RH/jcr opeiu #2001, afl-cio
|
