IBEW bad-faith claims dismissed

Frontiersman re-orter

PALMER -- The National Labor Relations Board recently upheld an Aug. 2001 decision by Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose, dismissing a complaint lodged by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547 that Matanuska Electric Association unlawfully implemented a bargaining proposal before a negotiations impasse was reached.

MEA spokesman Mike Pauley, Friday, called the decision a "significant victory" for the cooperative.

"This was a very serious charge brought by the IBEW, to charge that MEA bargained in bad faith throughout the [negotiations]," Pauley said. "We're very pleased that Judge Rose, in essence, saw through the union's posturing."

IBEW General Manager Gary Brooks said the decision was a let-down, but not a surprise.

"Clearly, we're disappointed, but the reality is getting an administrative law judge's decision overturned was sort of an uphill battle from the start," Brooks said.

In the case, IBEW alleged that during the 1998 to 2001 contract negotiations between the two bodies MEA shirked its duty to bargain and, in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, put a collective-bargaining proposal into effect.

But, according to the three-member panel of the board, MEA acted within their legal grounds under the understanding that the two bodies were not likely to reach a workable agreement.

The alleged unfair labor practices involve approximately 30 MEA employees -- linemen, wiremen, meter readers, mechanics and others. The group's contract was due to expire on Dec. 31, 1998, and was extended through negotiations, although the IBEW-represented employees staged an 83-day strike -- an action now the subject of a federal lawsuit filed by MEA. The workers offered to return unconditionally on March 25, 1999, and proceeded to work under the extended contract until MEA implemented its "last, best offer," on June 3, 1999. A final agreement was reached and became effective on Feb. 28, 2001.

The union and MEA negotiators met numerous times over the six months of contract negotiations, with little effect. On April 12, MEA declared an impasse, but that impasse was rescinded two days later when the union agreed to further bargaining sessions. On May 27, IBEW's negotiator wrote Thomas Owens, who was acting as MEA's negotiator at the time, requesting four meetings in June, along with some specific information. MEA agreed to meet June 8, but in a June 1 letter to IBEW's chief negotiator, MEA's principal spokesperson William Mede wrote that "further bargaining would be futile and not likely to produce an agreement." He gave Owens notice that MEA intended to implement the last proposal on the table, an April 29 proposal, on June 3. Mede also agreed to attend the June 8 meeting, to determine if the deadlock could be broken.

As a result of that implementation, IBEW filed a complaint that was eventually heard in Anchorage by Rose, who serves as an administrative law judge for the labor board. Rose dismissed the 12 allegations of bad-faith bargaining and National Labor Relations Act violations.

"I conclude that [the] Union's bargaining tactics made reaching an agreement a virtual impossibility," Rose wrote in his opinion. "I conclude that the Respondent (MEA) had no reason to believe that the Union would change tactics in the foreseeable future and therefore was permitted to declare impasse and implement its final offer."

The case was dismissed last August, but IBEW subsequently filed exceptions and a supporting brief with the NLRB. MEA responded with an answering brief, which was followed by a reply brief from IBEW. Now that the case has been dismissed by the NLRB, Brooks said IBEW does not plan to appeal, but has continued in what Brooks called an effort to extend an overture of appeal to MEA.

"We wrote a letter -- we've done it about four times over the last 12 to 16 months, and offered to get a facilitator, a mediator, to try to sit with us and try to get us on better ground," Brooks said.

At this point, he said, the letters have gone unanswered. When asked whether the letters requested that the bargaining contracts be reopened, Brooks said they did not.

"It's an attempt to have someone set and facilitate getting the two parties on ground that you can do business on," Brooks said. "We've got 80 collective bargaining agreements around the state of Alaska … and none even comes close to the relationship we have with MEA. It's not good."

Pauley said MEA hopes the case will add validity to the co-op's pending federal case against IBEW. In that case, MEA asserts that the IBEW employees strike was not lawfully instituted -- that they went on strike before an impasse in negotiations was reached and was based on opposition to open and competitive bidding, not terms of the contract negotiations.

"The decision will not give rise to any new complaints [by MEA]," Pauley said, "but we believe that it will help shore up any arguments in the ongoing [federal] litigation against IBEW."