Tensions escalate between city and union

Relations between the City of Libby and the city workers’ union took a turn for the worse at Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting. Unofficial union spokesman Kenny Rayome, Jr. told the council they shouldn’t be voting to approve the city employees’ salaries for the fiscal year because negotiations between Libby Mayor Doug Roll and the union had stalled.

“I don’t know how you expect to vote on the resolution, as we don’t have a contract in place,” Rayome told the council.

The contract between the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees – the city workers’ union – and the City of Libby expired June 30, 2015.

Rayome said the mayor and an attorney met with representatives from the union, but no negotiations ever took place. The union representatives presented seven requests for changes to the expired contract to the mayor, who told them he would take it to the City Council for approval, Rayome said.

Instead of council approval, however, the union received a letter from the city Aug. 19, in which two of the requests were accepted, a counterproposal was offered on one and four were rejected.

The city accepted the union’s request to modify the preamble of the agreement, changing the effective date of the contract from July 1, 2013 – the effective date of the previous contract – to July 1, 2015. The city also accepted the union’s request to continue to pay the workers’ health insurance premiums, including the increase in premiums experienced this year. The city has continued to pay the increased health insurance premiums, even though the contract is expired.

The union also requested notification of all new hires and terminations.

“The employer shall notify the AFSCME field representative by email of new hires and terminations when they occur,” the union proposed.

The city agreed in principle, but amended the request to a monthly notification.

“At month’s end during the term of the agreement, the city will notify the union by email of changes in members of the bargaining unit (e.g. new hires and separations) that month.”

The union also requested employees voluntarily leaving the city’s employ receive a pay-out of all earned and accrued, but unused, sick leave. The pay-out would apply only to employees with more than seven years of service and who provide at least 30 days advance notice of resignation.

The city denied the request. “Article 13, Section F (sick pay on termination): The city rejects the union’s proposal and does not offer a counterproposal,” the Aug. 19 document read.

The union also requested a three percent increase to the city’s pay matrix and the advancement of every city employee one step, effective July 1, 2015. Further, any employee who has completed the 12-month probationary period by July 1, 2016, would be advanced one step on that date. The union also requested an annual cost-of-living increase equal to the rate of inflation as reported in the west region’s consumer price index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The city rejected the union’s proposal, requesting the pay matrix and step increases remain unchanged from the previous, expired contract.

“The city rejects the union’s proposal and proposes that the pay matrix appended to the agreement that expired June 30, 2015, remain unchanged, but that employees receive step increases per the language of that agreement,” the response read. “The city further states that step increases were implemented per the language of the agreement that expired June 30, 2015.”

The union also asked for an increase in the hourly differential paid to city workers engaged in hazardous duty. The expired contract pays an additional $.40 per hour for workers engaged in weed spraying. The union’s proposal would modify that differential to read: “Any employee who is required to work in a hazardous area requiring respirators or other special safety equipment will be provided with such equipment and receive a differential of $.65 per hour worked.”

The city rejected the request with neither explanation nor counterproposal.

The union’s final request was for the contract to run for a three-year term. The city rejected the proposal and proposed another one-year contract, expiring June 30, 2016.

Rayome said his issue stems not from the city’s rejection of the union’s request, but from the way Mayor Roll handled the situation.

“Basically, he told the union one story and the council another,” Rayome said in a Wednesday morning interview. “What has happened here, in the union’s opinion, has not been in good faith.”

Councilman Allen Olsen criticized Mayor Roll’s handling of the negotiations, accusing the mayor of shutting the council out of the process.

“I sit on the union negotiating committee, and four years ago, Doug stated he had nothing to do with the meeting, other than to attend it,” Olsen said. “For some this year he decided to take over the meeting and hasn’t informed the council of anything to do with the negotiations.”

The official minutes of the City Council have no mention of the status of the negotiations and no reference to any report from the mayor to the council about the contract or the union’s request.

Roll said he took over the union negotiation because the council’s union negotiation committee chair, Councilman Brent Teske, was too busy to handle the negotiations.

“Brent Teske chairs that committee,” Roll said at the council meeting. “And he just didn’t have time.”

Roll said he intended to continue the negotiations himself, as it is part of the mayor’s duties.

“Until we get a negotiated contract, it stays in the executive,” Roll said.

Olsen said he has requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding Roll’s authority to conduct the negotiations without the involvement of council.

Teske said Roll took over from the outset.

“From the very beginning he said he was going to do it himself,” Teske said.

Rayome said the union is now preparing to negotiate directly with the council’s union negotiating committee, comprised of council members Allen Olsen, Dejon Raines and Brent Teske. The key, he said, is that the process be handled in good faith by both parties.

“This would have been fine, had the council authorized it,” Rayome said. “But the mayor tried to play both sides. The main thing isn’t about the dollar amount. It’s not about the requests not being met. It’s about the process not being done right, not being done in good faith. Had the council responded with reasonable objections it would be different. Nobody wants to hear ‘No, because I said so.’”

The council passed the FY2015-2016 salaries for city employees and officials, even though an agreement with the union for the year is not in place. City workers are continuing to work under the terms of the expired contract.