Welcome

Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers
Local 8-0369 Kenai

Agrium Reorganization and Reduction in Force News

Most Recent Information

 

May 5, 2003

 

Effects bargaining is scheduled to begin Wednesday May 7, 2003 at the Prism training building in Kenai. This page will be updated as information is made available.

 

May 7, 2003

In the morning session of the effects bargaining, the company proposed the following:

·        Timing of the layoff will be June 4 & 5.

·        27 Hourly Employees are affected.

·        Affected Maintenance Promotional Group reduction from 64 to 56 Craftsmen.

·        Affected Operations Promotional Group overall reduction from 111 to 92.

·        Layoff Process will be by seniority the layoff order in all affected promotional groups will be:

o       Probationary employees

o       Utility II and Utility I

o       Successive Job Level above Utility I

o       Same Process used in 1998 RIF

·        Wharf Promotional Group reduced in size to one regular full time employee assigned to each shift’s plant 3/6 coordinators.  Total four employees.

·        Company to create a new pool of casual Utility II level labor positions to meet demands of ship loading (Article 2.1 & 10.1)

·        Company estimates a potential for 12 – 14 on demand positions in the pool (Article 10.7).

·        Company estimates 1000 hours of work per year for each “On Demand” position.

·        Employees laid off may apply for a position in the wharf pool.

·        Those employees selected for the wharf pool will work an 8-hour shift as needed.

·        The Agrium Group Benefits Program referenced in Article 6.1 does not contain provisions to provide benefits for casual employees.

·        Existing Wharf Pool Employees:

o       Will continue to be eligible on an earnings basis for 401(k) & retirement plan

o       Vacation will be allocated on a pro rata basis

These are strictly the Company’s proposals and the Union has significant disagreements with their proposals.

Just as the Membership has a great many questions on these proposals, so did your Negotiation Committee.  The Union responded with a great deal of questions and asked for clarification on these proposals.  The Bargaining Process broke for lunch and resumed at 2:30 pm.

 

The Company answering the Negotiation Committee’s questions most of which concerned the proposed Wharf Pool.

It appears the Company does not want to revisit past negotiations for reference or interpretation and only uses text, as they would like to see it.  “The history of past negotiations has no relevance.  We inherited an agreement negotiated by another company.  Well, we are a different company that operates on a different philosophy.” There is some question as to the interpretation as to whether or not the proposed Wharf Pool employees are fully covered under the current agreement and that seems to be an issue of the company wanting to apply certain aspects of the agreement and omitting others as a matter of convenience.

The company has informed us that they will implement the proposed Reduction in Force on June 4th and 5th regardless of where the Effects Bargaining stands.

The Company and the Union will meet again at 9:00 am May 8th

May 8, 2003

Effects bargaining:

·        The Union proposed an Employee Re-Adjustment Training Proposal

·        The Union explained its position on the lay-off language and explained the bumping language

·        The Union proposed a proposal to request volunteers for lay-off

·        The Company and Union agreed to work together on the US-DOL presentation.  (date and time of this presentation is to be announced)

·         There was also some discussion to explain the company’s position on the scheduling, vacations, and overtime issues with wharf pool staffing.  

·        The Company made a counter proposal for the Employee Readjustment Training

·        The Company made a counter proposal for the voluntary termination package, which contained numerous losses of contractual rights and restrictions. 

1.      Volunteers give up all recall rights and sign a general release.

2.      For the purposes of this RIF the layoff process will be on the basis of affected promotional groups as defined by the company in Article 8.3(a).

3.      Termination Allowance Plant (TAP) grievance is withdrawn.

4.      Utility II grievance is withdrawn

5.      No future grievances due to the layoff process will be advanced to arbitration.

Essentially, the Company’s proposal would have volunteers who leave, only get their package at the expense of the rights being lost by the employees who continue working at the plant.

 

May 9, 2003

Effects bargaining:

·        The Company accepted the Union’s proposal on the Employee Readjustment Training.

o       Agrium shall provide readjustment training and counseling for each employee terminated during the reorganization of 2003.

1.      Following termination, each employee will be provided up to 20 hours of counseling or assistance.

2.      Training and counseling shall consist of but not be limited to the following:

§         Resume preparation

§         Job search guidance

§         Job interview skills training

§         Assistance with any State or Federal programs that may be applicable

3.      The Company will at its expense enlist the services of Sal Mattero to facilitate the counseling and training of employees.

4.      The Company shall provide the necessary facilities and reasonable resources for counseling and training sessions to be held.

·        Regarding the Voluntary Termination Proposal high lights of the events went as follows. This proposal would have allowed active employees to volunteer to be laid off.

1.      The Union responded to the Company’s counter proposal.

2.      The Company countered the Union’s Voluntary Termination Proposal.

3.      The Union modified its proposal making significant changes in a bid to consummate an agreement.

4.      The Company told the Union that without the conditions, withdraw the Utility II grievance and set aside current layoff language, the proposal is rejected in whole.

The Union insisted that we continue the Effects Bargaining in an effort to bring the process to a close.  The Company did not agree to any future meeting dates at this time.

 

 

 

 

May 20, 2003

 

Effects bargaining:

The Union and the Company met today beginning at 12 noon

·        The Union requested more clarification on the company’s intention reguarding the lay-off procedure, the full time wharf employees, and the wharf pool.

·        The Union proposed an Overtime Proposal

·        The Union proposed a proposal on Exit Physical Examinations

·        The Union proposed a Loader I assigned to the Utility Plant progression

·        The Union proposed a Voluntary Termination Proposal

 

The Union and the Company adjourned and will continue negotiations at 9:00 am
 May 21, 2003.

 

 

May 21, 2003

 

Effects bargaining:

 

The Union and the Company met today at 9:00 AM.  The Union gave the Company a proposal for the wharf pool that would essentially meet the contractual agreement and addresses the business needs of the Company. After a brief question and answer session, the Company took a caucus to review the proposal and prepared previously requested information.

The bargaining session resumed at 3:00 PM

The Company declined the Overtime Proposal “NOT NOW NOT EVER!”

The Company said that they currently perform exit physicals when requested

The Company declined the Loader I assigned to the Utility Plant progression

The Company eliminated the casual wharf pool concept:

·        The new proposed plan is to staff the plants to 20 and use the extra help to work on the wharf  when a ship is in.

·        The new plant staffing will be:

o       Maintenance reorganization remains the same

o       Plant 1, 2, 4, 5 would be staffed to 20

o       Plant 3/6 would be staffed to 16

o       The Wharf would be staffed to 4

·        Minimum staffing would be 4 in the production plants and 3 in the boiler house

·        One operator on each shift would be designated to work the wharf

·        Wharf designated operator will be either a volunteer or the least senior operator on that shift.  Volunteer will be committing to a minimum of 2 years

·        Wharf designated operators on a shift will coordinate vacation with their plant’s shift and the other wharf designated operators on that shift.  Plant – no more than one operator on vacation at a time.  Wharf designated Operators – no more than two on vacation at a time from one shift.

The Company also changed the Volunteer Termination Plan by dropping the Utility II grievance language but still have it tied to the company’s interpretation of the lay-off language.

 

Remember there is an informational picket at the plant from 6:30 a.m. until 8:00 a.m.

 

The Union and the Company adjourned and will continue negotiations at 9:30 am
 May 22, 2003.

 

 

 

 

May 22, 2003

 

Effects bargaining:

 

The Union requested the company to rethink their stance on the scheduling of vacation for the wharf volunteers.  The Company said this is something they would continue to evaluate.

The Union proposed that the Loader I assigned to the Wharf who assists in the boiler house and signs off in two areas would qualify for A operator pay.  The Company said they have some interest and will look at this proposal further.

As for the Voluntary Termination Plan, the Union urged the company that VTAPs would be in the best interest of the facility.  The Union has already given the company almost total freedom to choose.  However, the stipulation on the contractual way the lay-off is to proceed is an area we can not go.  The Union urged the company to reconsider the VTAP proposal.  The Company responded with the VTAP proposal with the same contractual language stipulation and extended the response time until May 29, 2003 at 5:00 p.m.

No further talks are scheduled at this time.