Ayotte appears to exceed distance in RFP. Did Union violate grievance agreement in contract?

The Ayotte Garage appears to exceed Original Parking distance referenced in 2014 Central Office RFP

2014 RFP Central Offices

img_1592

I still don’t believe this move from the Roy to the Ayotte garage is a significant change in their working environment but the Administrator’s union does appear to have a point when they say it is more of a distance than the RFP outlined as being advantageous.

There is nothing in the Unions contract that specifies parking or distance and it would appear the Union is arguing that the move from the Roy to th Ayotte is in violation of the lease and therefore changed their working environment. The inaction of the Superintendent in notifying the school committee or settling this by pointing out the City Manager removed $100,000 chargeback against the school dept seems to indicate he supports the Unions stance.

I have requested a copy of the lease approved by the City Council in July of 2014 to see what that says.

It will be interesting to see if the state labor board would agree that the additional distance requires additional compensation. In hindsight the City Manager who removed a $100,000 Parking charge to the school dept should have specified it was in consideration for moving the parking but that wasn’t specified.

The distance between 155 Merrimack St and the two different garages if you use Google Maps is more than 3 minutes.

2 min (0.1 mile) Via Palmer St Roy Garage
7 min (0.4 mile) Via Kirk St and Post Office Square Ayotte Garage

This is what the Original RFP specified about parking.

Lessor will be responsible for confirming there are 110 parking spaces in either a municipal parking garage or private parking garage/lot within walking distance from the proposed space. The Lessee will pay for said parking spaces. Do not include parking costs in your proposal.

• Parking spaces complying with all State and Federal regulations, including those of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

6. PARKING
HIGHLY ADVANTAGEOUS
• 110 spaces in close proximity to building
• 50 on 8/1/14 & 60 on 7/1/15 or when occupied
• Free and/or metered parking in front of building

ADVANTAGEOUS
• 110 spaces less than 1/10 of a mile from building 50 on 8/1/14 & 60 on 7/1/15 or when occupied
• Free or metered parking in front of building

NOT ADVANTAGEOUS
• 110 spaces more than 1/10 of a mile but less than 1⁄4 of a mile away
• 50 on 8/1/14 & 60 on 7/1/15 or when occupied
• Metered parking in front of building

UNACCEPTABLE
• 110 spaces more than 1⁄4 of a mile from building
• 50 on 8/1/14 & 60 on 7/1/15 or when occupied
• No parking in front of building

Another issue of concern is with this school committee and this union and the agreed upon procedures concerning grievances. If this School Committee is to be believed that Committee wasn’t flagged and this wasn’t brought to their attention or resolved before it ended up before the state Department of Labor in the form of a grievance filed Dec. 23 and The issue dates back to Aug. 23, when members of the Lowell School Administrators Association met with Schools Superintendent Salah Khelfaoui.

The question is why were they not notified?

Did this Superintendent purposely not notifying the committee because he agrees with the union?

He was quoted in the Sun appearing to do so –

Khelfaoui said the union grievance has its point. “The Ayotte is not practical for many. There are many employees who are in and out and in out, sometimes four times a day. Do the math.”

Is the Union in violation of the contract by not notifying the Committee in writing has the contract calls for? If so shouldn’t the School Committee file their own unfair labor practice charge?

Here is what the LSAA contract states about this type of grievance and how it is supposed to be handled.

C. A grievance that affects a group or a class of administrative or supervisory personnel represented by the Association may be submitted in writing directly to the Superintendent and the processing of any such grievance shall commence at Level Two

LEVEL TWO
(A) In the event that the grievance shall not have been disposed of to the satisfaction of the aggrieved employee at Level One, or in the event that no decision has been reached within five (5) work days after the presentation of the grievance to the immediate superior, the grievance shall, within the next five (5) days, be referred to the Superintendent of Schools.
(B) The Superintendent, or his designee, shall represent the Committee at this level of the grievance procedure. Within five (5) workdays of his receipt of the grievance, the Superintendent shall meet with the aggrieved employee and the Chairperson of the Association’s Grievance Committee in an effort to settle the grievance.

LEVEL THREE
In the event that the grievance shall not have been satisfactorily disposed of at Level Two, or in the event that no decision has been rendered within five (5) work days after the Level Two meeting, the Association may within five (5) work days refer the grievance in writing to the Committee on a facsimile of Appendix B, as attached. Within five (5) workdays thereafter, the Committee shall meet with the aggrieved employee and the Association’s Grievance Committee in an effort to settle the grievance.

LEVEL FOUR
In the event that the grievance shall not have been satisfactorily disposed of at Level Three, or in the event that no decision has been rendered within five (5) work days after the Level Three meeting, the Association may, within one (1) complete calendar month, refer the unsettled grievance to arbitration if a timely and proper notation and signature of the Grievant and Chairperson of the Association’s Grievance Committee is made on a facsimile of Appendix B, as attached.

The arbitrator shall be selected by an agreement between the parties. If the parties are unable to agree upon an arbitrator, the selection shall be made by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with the voluntary labor arbitration rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association.

The arbitrator shall be without power or authority to make any decision prohibited by law or to add to, alter, or modify this Agreement.
The decision of the arbitrator shall be in writing and shall set forth his/her findings of fact, reasoning, and conclusions on the issues submitted. The arbitrator’s decision, when made within the scope of his/her authority shall be final and binding on all parties. The costs of services of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the Committee and the Association.

So the questions I have are, Did the Union not follow the contract and agreed upon process and did all or any school committee members know about this and ignore it?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s