Ortonville- The end of union representation for village DPW employees appears to be drawing near.
The village council will vote on a settlement agreement at their June 22 meeting that would end an ongoing dispute with Kevin Booms over his termination as a Department of Public Works employee, as well as sound the death knell for union representation for village DPW employees.
On June 10, the council unanimously approved a similar settlement agreement for Bill Prince, who was fired as a DPW employee on Jan. 29 for using paid work time for personal business. Booms was terminated a few days later, on Feb. 2, purportedly for reckless driving of a village vehicle.
‘I am pleased because we have now resolved all issues regarding the DPW? not just with Mr. Prince, but also Mr. Booms and Teamsters Local 214,? said Council President Ken Quisenberry. ‘It’s a fabulous settlement with Kevin. We have not been able to plan services in the past because of terms of the union contract. Now we can put together a plan for a cost effective, yet extremely efficient DPW to provide services for the village and its residents.?
Settlement terms include the following:
– Booms will be allowed to resign and the village records will be modified to reflect that he voluntarily resigned effective July 1, 2009, although both parties will report it as a layoff to the state unemployment office;
– All references to alleged reckless acts in January 2009 will be removed from Booms? personnel file.
– The village will issue a letter of reference for Booms and all future references will be positive;
– Booms and the union will withdraw and consider completely resolved any claims related to his discharge arbitration and related to his resignation, and will also withdraw any and all employment-related claims he may have against the village or officials, and will waive rights to reinstatement at the village;
– For the period of Feb. 3, 2009 through June 8, 2009, the village will see to it that Booms receives wages/compensation equal to $12,290.40 (made up of backpay and unemployment insurance benefits). For the period from June 9 through June 30, the village will see to it that Booms receives wages/compensation equal to $2,960.64 (made up of backpay and unemployment insurance benefits at the supervisor rate of pay); Additionally, the village will pay Booms $2,000 in exchange for his litigation release and voluntary resignation, and will pay another $819.36, equaling 6 days of accrued vacation pay.
Booms could not be reached for comment.
Perhaps most significant, as far as long-reaching impact on the village, is the term in the agreement which states, ‘The union understands and agrees that effective July 1, it will no longer represent a DPW unit at the village, as a result of the resolution passed by the village council on June 9.?
The statement makes reference to the motion made by the council last week that ‘If the village is not required to recognize a 1-man bargaining unit, then notice should be served on the union indicating the village’s desire to discontinue its recognition of the union at the earliest (legal) opportunity.?
Teamsters Local 214 President Joe Valenti confirms that technically, no public employer in Michigan is required to recognize a 1-man bargaining unit.
‘They can get rid of the union,? Valenti said. ‘I don’t like that at all, it’s not right; but there is nothing we can do about it after June 30.?
June 30 is when the DPW contract expires. It has been in effect since August 2006, when it was agreed upon by the village and Teamsters Local 214 following two years of negotiations.
Quisenberry called the current labor contract a ‘stranglehold? for the village’s longterm goals, which are to return operational decisions back to the village management rather than the union contract.
‘This isn’t an anti-union move, it’s an anti-current labor contract move,? he said. ‘There are so many clauses that don’t allow management to make day-to-day changes in its operations. We’re not allowed to contract any services, not allowed to adjust scheduling, not allowed to utilize part-time work.?
Quisenberry was unsure how DPW services will be handled in the village in the future and noted the village currently has a part-time worker and would like to get him some help.
‘We realize we won’t be able to continue with one part-time person,? Quisenberry said. ‘We will look at other options. We can hire full-time people, contract out, or do a combination of both. I don’t believe contracting (private businesses for services) would be more expensive. All our options are open and we will provide the best service for the village at a price the taxpayers can afford to pay.?