Originally Posted by
NoHaz
I also typically cringe when I see an out of the blue settlement agreement posted. It is usually advertised as 'clearing up some grey areas' but often amounts to a weakened interpretation of the CBA.
That's a different topic, but related in a way you may not realize. (And I agree with you. The Jury Duty Settlement Agreement, for example, does not clear up any gray area in the CBA, because it was not gray. The Company just decided to start ignoring it. The Settlement Agreement instead changed the rules in favor of The Company, rewarding them for their intentional violations.)
When I was an MEC Rep, I was astounded when the MEC was briefed AFTER THE FACT about Settlement Agreements which had been reached by a certain committee and signed by the MEC Chairman. I found it especially troubling when these Settlement Agreements effectively changed the negotiated work rules memorialized in our CBA. I was not the only MEC member who believed the MEC should have a say in approving or rejecting such agreements.
Since then, I introduced Resolutions at the Local Council level which were approved by Local Council membership vote which would have required committees to include MEC approval on the Settlement Agreement process. (A similar Resolution would have also placed notification and update requirements on the Negotiating Committee to keep the MEC informed about the progress of negotiations in order to prevent surprises like the one which became our "Bridge Contract.") Both Resolutions were rejected at the MEC level.
The similarity between this and the current committee chairman resignation is the fundamental question of which body is responsible for strategic direction, and which is responsible for furthering objectives in that direction? Does the MEC work for the committees, or the other way around?
.