The Civil Service Personnel Association, Inc.(CSPA) represents the clerical, technical and professional employees in the city of Akron, Ohio. We represent approximately 530 employees in 160 different classifications. Our labor agreement includes a Recognition clause that recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining agent in any and all matters subject to the collective bargaining process and a grievance procedure that includes arbitration. The contract also requires that the Administration notify the Union of any proposal to change duties and responsibilities of any existing job classification 30 days prior to the time the city's Civil Service Commission acts upon the proposal.

In May 1996, I was approached by the Deputy Planning Director with a proposal. The Planning Department has two position which are within the CSPA bargaining unit, Graphic Artist I & II. The Personnel Department was working on a proposal to reallocate the pay ranges of both these classifications downward. The deal was that if the Union would waive the 30 day notification required by the contract, the two promoted would be "grandfathered in" and paid at the higher pay range.

'BLAME THE UNION'

CSPA refused to waive the 30 day requirement and pointed out a downward move in the pay ranges would be a violation of the contract. The Union recognized that dual pay ranges within a classification means two people working side by side, doing the same jobs, meeting the same requirements; yet one is getting paid less. The Administration went back and told the employees, "your Union is holding up your promotion." Naturally, the angry employees complained the Union was not working in their best interest.

The proposed action was on the agenda of the May 1996 Civil Service Commission which is a public hearing. The Commissioners, upon hearing the Union's objections voted to take 30 days on the issue. In the interim the Union met with representatives of the Personnel Department who stated it was their intention to go forward with the reallocation. The two employees were promoted despite the Union's refusal to agree to the deal. In June, the proposal to reallocate downward was again submitted on the agenda and adopted over the objections of the Union. While CSPA had somewhat prevailed in the promotion issue, a grievance was filed regarding the pay range reallocation.

At the grievance meeting, the representatives of CSPA were told by the Labor Relations representative Jim Masturzo, that their grievance was denied. CSPA asked for a response in writing and told Jim of the intention to take the issue to arbitration. The Union was shocked to receive a two page written response letter stating that the issue was not grievable, and therefore the City refused to agree to arbitration.

THE UNION'S RESPONSE

CSPA responded with a two pronged approach. A complaint to compel arbitration was filed with the Summit County Court of Common Pleas; and an Unfair Labor Practice was filed with Ohio SERB.

In the pre-hearing conference before SERB, the City argued that since the promotions were made before the lowering of the pay ranges, no one was affected by the action, and so CSPA did not have a real case at issue. The City also proffered the argument that since the position of Graphic Artist I was vacant, the Union had no viable dispute because it could not represent someone who does not yet work for the City. When asked by the SERB Hearing Officer Leigh Anne Reardon "Did the Union ask to bargain over the issue" the Deputy Mayor for Labor Relations, Matt Contessa responded, "even if they did, we would refuse" The Union argued if SERB allowed this reallocation action to take place it could set a precedent which would allow any public employer in the State of Ohio to systematically go through a bargaining unit and negate the gains in wages offered in the settlement of labor agreements.

VICTORY: ROUND ONE

On July 10, 1997, the Ohio State Employment Relations Board issued an opinion ruling in favor of the Civil Service Personnel Association. In that opinion the writer states, "The duty to bargain is a continuing one, and a union may legitimately bargain over wages and conditions of employment which will affect employees who are to be hired in the future."