FORGOTTEN UNION EMERGES IN CITY

Until a year ago, Cape Girardeau's public works employees didn't know they were represented by a labor union.

In the early 1970s, workers elected the St. Louis-based International Union of Operating Engineers Local 2 to be their collective bargaining representative. But somewhere along the way, the local and the workers forgot about each other.

"What happened as best I can tell is that sometime in 1972 the Public Works Department voted overwhelmingly to be represented by Local 2," said Bob Sweeney, business representative and counsel to Local 2. "Either they ran into a similar roadblock that we're running into now, or somehow someone dropped the ball, quite possibly us."

The forgotten union or forgotten employees would have remained that way if a teamsters' union hadn't decided about a year ago to organize the city's mechanics.

Dan Ward, the city's human-resources director, said it took a paper trail to reveal the truth.

"Through checking old records we found out that Local 2 was still the representing union," he said.

Local discovers oversight

After Local 2 discovered the oversight, Sweeney said representatives talked to Cape Girardeau's public works employees about the situation. "They were pleased to find out they were represented by a union," Sweeney said. "It's a bit embarrassing for us."

Although it has been years since Cape Girardeau's public works employees have called on Local 2 for any kind of assistance, Missouri law allows the union essentially to pick up where it left off in its representation of the workers.

But unfamiliarity with each other and differing interpretations of Missouri's "meet and confer" law -- the "roadblock" to which Sweeney referred -- apparently are causing tension between the city and the union.

Sweeney, along with about 50 city employees, attended Tuesday's City Council meeting. He told the council, which has no collective bargaining power, that he was disappointed by what he sees as management's lack of interest in having a good relationship with public works employees. He added that union representatives had an unfavorable meeting with city officials earlier this month that lasted no more than seven minutes.

The operating engineers is the only union that represents city employees. Although the fire department is represented by the International Association of Firefighters, it does not have union representation with the city.

Wednesday, Sweeney said his unsatisfactory meeting with the city leads him to believe officials have a problem with labor organizations.

"The city has, I think, some relatively serious problems with its relationship with its employees," he said.

Sweeney said: "Instead of looking within the organization and saying, The union being here is a reflection that we're not doing something right,' they blamed the messenger and they punished the victim. They're mad at their employees for selecting a labor organization, and they're mad at the labor organization for representing the employees."

City manager Michael Miller and human-resources director Dan Ward said they are happy to talk to city employees and labor representatives, but they believe the problem stems from Cape Girardeau's interpretation of meet and confer being different than that of Sweeney and Local 2.

No contracts

Under Missouri law, public bodies must meet and confer with labor organizations about salaries and other conditions of employment. However, cities can't enter into binding collective bargaining contracts with labor unions.

Instead of entering a contract, public entities and unions can draw up a "memorandum of understanding," a written document that contains the negotiated terms of discussions about employment conditions. Further, Chapter 105 of the Missouri Revised Statutes indicates the city can unilaterally change the terms of a memorandum of understanding without approval by the labor organization -- at least one difference between it and a true contract.

Cape Girardeau has a history of conducting yearly meet-and-confer sessions with all city employees prior to developing its annual budget. During those meetings, Ward said, the city and employees discuss requests for salary increases and changes to employee benefits or other conditions.

In January, prior to any of the city's meet-and-confer sessions, Ward said an anonymous union representative who failed to identify himself dropped off two copies of a labor contract at City Hall. Ward said that even though the city is forbidden from entering into such a contract, he and Miller looked through the document, then scheduled a meeting with employees to talk about it.

"Our first meeting always is we sit down and try to understand what employees' concerns are," Ward said, adding that Miller then called for a second meeting with the public works employees.

Union requests denied

During the second meeting, Ward said, Sweeney asked the city for a contract, then a memorandum of understanding, and officials denied both requests because they were still working out budget details with city departments. Ward said he believes Sweeney mistook that as meaning the city is not interested in negotiating with the employees.

"We're not taking any of the things in the contract off the table, we're just taking the contract off the table because we're not entering a contract," Ward said. "We will evaluate each of the things they've requested inside. It was the contract itself taken off, not the provisions."

Currently, the only provision in the city's memorandum of understanding with the operating engineers is that the city recognizes the union's exclusive representation of public works employees.

The union members want to modify the memorandum to include salary increases, changes to the workers' health-care policy, seniority and grievance guidelines and other requests.

Sweeney disputes Ward's version of the exchange about a contract between the city and the union. He said the city brought up a contract first. He also characterized the meeting as disrespectful.

"The thing I went into two weeks ago was a dictation session, We dictated that we're not interested in dealing with anything you have and we'll see you later,'" he said. "That's not what I believe the law requires. I believe the city failed in its obligation to meet and confer. They may have been doing what they call meet and confer, but this is a different ball game."

Sweeney said all he wants is a legitimate meet-and-confer session, which both the city and the union agree likely will happen in the next couple of weeks.

"I expected to sit down and talk about stuff, and we didn't. I got no indication that we would," he said. "We want them to talk about our proposal, let us know what they can and can't live with and some level of why they can or can't. I don't think that's asking too much."

Ward said he and other city officials are interested in talking with employees about their needs.

"I am not opposed to dealing with Local 2, but I'm not the city manager, and the city manager says there's not going to be a contract and there's probably not going to be a contract. That doesn't mean we still can't meet and confer," he said.