|
Minutes
and Reports
1. Opening and
welcome –Ms. Mason
Senior Member Sherry Mason called
the meeting to order at approximately
10:15am.
2. Approval of
minutes of SHELRB/SLRB joint meeting of
9/18/08
(Motion to
approve)
Ms. Mason requested any motions
regarding the minutes from the previous
joint meeting between the State Labor
Relations Board and the State Higher
Education Labor Relations Board. Board
member Laird Patterson moved to
adopt the minutes from the previous
meeting, and Homer LaRue seconded
the motion. All remaining Board members
were in approval and the minutes from
9/18/08 were adopted as written.
3. Senior member
report for SLRB
5.
Regulations—eligible for final adoption
Certain regulations were offered
as eligible for final adoption, with a
copy available for the public at today’s
meeting.
Computation of
Time/Service: COMAR 14.32.01.05
Negotiations and
Ratification of MOU: COMAR 14.32.06
Ms. Mason noted the content
and/or changes of each particular
regulation and then asked for a motion
regarding each of them. Laird
Patterson moved that both
regulations be adopted as final, and
Susie Jablinske seconded the motion.
Ms. Mason asked if all the membership
was in favor, and all indicated that
they were. The motion to adopt the
regulations as final, carried.
6. Announcement of
administrative determinations or Board
decisions
and orders, as
appropriate:
Ms. Snipes noted that in the course of
Board daily business,
cases are
often filed with the Board by private
individuals against private employers.
All of these matters are typically
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, lack
of proper service, and failure to state
a claim under Board regulations. On one
of these matters filed recently,
however, it was clear that the
petitioner should have filed his claim
with a different state agency. At the
guidance of Assistant Attorney General,
Joe Pokempner, and the Attorney
General's office as a whole, Ms. Snipes
issued a letter to the petitioner
indicating that his claim would be more
properly filed with the other agency.
Ms. Snipes did not make any statements
as to the merits of the petitioner’s
case. It was advised that a state
agency has a certain duty to members of
the general public to provide
information, and in particular, if
another agency is better suited to
working with that member of the public
on a matter, that member of the public
should be so advised.
Board member Homer LaRue, asked if
recommending the other agency would open
us up to legal trouble. Attorney
General Joe Pokempner stated that it
would not, given that we weren’t
recommending a specific course of action
on the merits of the petitioner’s case,
or recommending that he/she talk to a
certain person at the other agency.
7. Issues arising
from the elections, negotiations,
investigations, and
cases pending
before OAH:
Ms. Mason noted that all SLRB
matters previously pending before OAH
have been withdrawn or settled privately
between the parties.
8.
New
Business
proposed by members of the Boards or
staff.
Possible
Election of a Chairman—Board discussion
and open session vote.
Ms. Mason indicated
that now that the Board has full
membership, the time had come to elect a
chairman, and sought out nominations.
Laird Patterson said that given his
experience as past chair of the Board,
and his extensive background and resume,
Homer LaRue should be nominated for the
chairmanship. Susie Jablinske
seconded the nomination. Ms. Mason
asked if all membership were in
agreement, everyone said yes, and Mr.
LaRue was thereby elected as SLRB
chairman.
Possible work with formerly
discussed potential future regulation at
14.32.08, Employee Opt Out Procedures.
As newly elected chair, Mr. LaRue
began a discussion regarding this
potential regulation, noting that the
Board had agreed to table its discussion
on this same regulation at its last
meeting in September, based on the idea
that the parties would be working on an
agreement as to the language in the
regulation. Chairman LaRue asked the
parties present to come forward to
indicate where they were in this
process.
For the Department of Budget
and Management: Kris Hoffman
Ms. Hoffman indicated
that DBM was working with the exclusive
bargaining representatives on this
issue, in an attempt to clarify state
obligations regarding the Collective
Bargaining statute at §3-208, dealing
with employees opting out of giving the
exclusive representative certain contact
information. Ms. Hoffman noted that the
parties have agreed on many other
portions of a clarifying regulation
about this portion of the statute, but
their opinion differs when it comes to
the intent of the legislature regarding
§(f), dealing with costs of providing
the information requested by the
exclusive representatives.
Ms.
Hoffman stated that the DBM argument is
that “providing” the information, as the
statute reads, should encompass the
costs of compiling the information that
the exclusive representatives may
request. Ms. Hoffman noted that the one
time, in 2007, when DBM actually did
work to provide AFSCME with the
materials in a request under this
statutory section, AFSCME had paid for
the mailing, but that the remaining
administrative cost absorbed by DBM was
quite high. Ms. Hoffman stated that DBM
does not have all the information
required by the statute at its immediate
disposal, so links had to be made with a
number of other state offices in order
to get the full information. Following
DBM’s gathering of the information from
various sources, time and energy had to
be spent in redacting the information
for those particular employees who had
opted out of providing it to the
exclusive representative, as per the
statute. When all was said and done, Ms.
Hoffman noted that DBM staff triple
checked the correctness of the work, and
that combined with the issues of
layoffs, and particular positions being
frozen, there is a great administrative
burden in doing all of this, that falls
upon fewer and fewer employees.
Ms.
Hoffman indicated that AFSCME’s
position, noting that the AFSCME
representative was present and could
certainly speak to their position as
well, was that the language in the
statute, “providing,” was simply what it
said, and that it did not encompass the
compiling of the information. Ms.
Hoffman then brought up a comparison to
the Public Information Act, and requests
made under that statute. Board member
Laird Patterson asked with the Public
Information Act said. Ms. Hoffman read
it for him, noting that it included the
idea of charging for the compiling,
researching, etc., of documents
requested. Newly elected chair Homer
LaRue noted that the Public Information
differs from the situation here, because
here we have two parties who have a
relationship and a duty to each other
based on collective bargaining. Ms.
Hoffman noted that before this section
of the law was amended in 2006, DBM
would frequently process requests from
AFSCME, and use the Public Information
Act as the means of providing the
information. Now, Ms. Hoffman notes, the
added burden of notifying employees has
driven the administrative costs up.
Chairman LaRue next asked if the state’s
position would be to share costs under
this statutory section with the
exclusive representatives, or if the
state would prefer to transfer all the
costs to the union. Ms. Hoffman
responded that it was the state’s
preference to transfer all of the costs
to the exclusive representatives, but
acknowledged that there was probably a
reasonable position somewhere between
transferring all the costs and having
the exclusive representatives simply pay
for the documents they’d be receiving.
Ms. Hoffman noted that there was a
procurement request in the works for a
State-wide Human Resources Information
System, and there would be a provision
that the person or company that won the
procurement contract would be getting a
database ready that would have all the
information necessary based on the
statute. Ms. Hoffman stated that this
procurement request hadn’t been
submitted yet, but she was hopeful that
the process could be accomplished in the
next two to three years. Chairman LaRue
again asked Ms. Hoffman if DBM was
ultimately willing to share the costs of
the statutory provisions here with the
exclusive representatives. Ms. Hoffman
indicated that DBM was willing to share
the costs. Chairman LaRue stated that
the Board wants discussion and an
agreement on this clarifying regulation
soon and certainly prefers that proposed
regulations be worked out between the
parties, so that all are in agreement
before the regulations become final.
The Chairman strongly encouraged the
parties to work together on this
regulation soon.
For AFSCME: Linda D. McKeegan, Esq.
(Kahn, Smith & Collins)
Ms. McKeegan stated that
the parties have been working on this
matter, and that there was a meeting
between AFSCME and Cindy Kollner, of DBM,
to discuss the providing of information
under §3-208 of the collective
bargaining statute. Ms. McKeegan quoted
from certain portions of a letter
memorializing the agreements at the
meeting, sent from Patrick Moran,
President of AFSCME, Maryland, to Cindy
Kollner. One particular provision that
Ms. McKeegan noted was that Mr. Moran
had said that AFSCME may be willing to
use the language indicating a fee could
be charged for compiling the
information, but with the separate
understanding that AFSCME would not
request the information until such a
time as DBM had an electronic database
in place.
Ms. McKeegan noted that the
union is aware that there are
administrative costs associated with
providing this information, and that she
is doing what she can to get the parties
back to the table to discuss this issue,
but they’ve had a lot on their plates,
and other matters such as the furloughs
for state employees, have taken
precedence. Ms. McKeegan notes that
although invitations for participation
have been sent to all appropriate
representatives and parties, neither
MCEA or AFT have been a part of any
recent communications on the statutory
provision or the regulation under
discussion.
Chairman LaRue asked the
Board members if they had any questions
for Ms. McKeegan. Seeing none, the
Chairman asked Ms. McKeegan what
AFSCME’s position was in terms of
sharing costs with the state on this
matter. Ms. McKeegan responded that as
far as she was aware, AFSCME had not
changed its position that costs as DBM
imagined them should not be shared, but
as AFSCME’s attorney, Ms. McKeegan may
well advise AFSCME that sharing costs
may be the best solution. Ms. McKeegan
agreed to take the message back to
AFSCME that the Board has been quite
patient on waiting for the parties to
discuss this regulation and come to a
workable solution. Chairman LaRue noted
that the next Board meeting will be
sometime in April, and that the parties
were urged to come up with something
before that time. Ms. McKeegan, looking
back at Ms. Hoffman who nodded in
assent, stated that she certainly hoped
that the parties could get something to
the Executive Director before that time.
Ms. McKeegan noted that the parties have
worked together well in the past with
the Executive Director facilitating
meetings on other regulatory provisions,
particularly the ones that were adopted
as final early in today’s meeting.
Chairman LaRue stated that he hoped that
Ms. McKeegan could incorporate the
opinions of the other exclusive
representatives as well, as the Board
did not wish to adopt this regulatory
change in a piecemeal fashion regarding
each exclusive representative. Ms.
McKeegan and Ms. Hoffman indicated they
believed they could get the other
representatives’ involved in discussions
about this regulation. The Chairman
repeated his strong encouragement for
the parties to compromise on this and
come up with language that was
acceptable to all.
9. Meeting calendar
Proposed meeting
calendar: Remainder of Calendar Year 09
Either: April
16, 23, 30
Either: October 15,
22, 29
The Board members discussed
the various dates in April, and
ultimately agreed on April 23 as their
next meeting date. They were unable to
agree on an October date at this time,
but agreed to have a date(s) into the
Executive Director by April 1.
Public comment.
Ms. Mason made one
other new business note, and formally
welcomed June Marshall, the newest Board
member, and noted that she was pleased
that the Board now had full membership,
something it had not had in quite some
time. Chairman LaRue thanked Ms. Mason,
adding his own welcome to Ms. Marshall
as well.
As there were no individuals signed up
for public comment, the Board moved to
adjournment.
10. Adjournment
Chairman LaRue sought motions:
June Marshall moved to adjourn
the meeting and Laird Patterson
seconded the motion. The Board
meeting was adjourned at approximately
11:00am.
|