WC and FML - and the Firemen's Union....

Ettelok

We are a small city. Our Fire union is complaining that we did not negotiate a 'change' to our FMLA policy early last year when we started to count FML concurrently with Workers Comp. This was brought to their attention recently when an incident involving FML and WC came up for one of the Firemen. Although we have been running the two leaves concurrently for several months now, they are saying that when we added the concurrent language to the policy last year (which we added as a clarification - not as a change, since we were already doing it), we should have negotiated the 'change'.

OK, although I'm arguing that it was a policy clarification not a change and in a perfect world, I would have made 200 copies and sent one to each employee, I do not feel that implementing the policy requires mandatory negotiation since the federal law and the state law both define a serious health condition without mention of where the illness or injury must take place in order to qualify. In other words, just because an injury or illness happens at work, does not mean it does not count as a serious health condition. And once the injury qualifies for FML, we can count it as FML. That is OUR right. (Employers do have a few rights….) Of course we can be more generous than the law requires, but we are not obligated to be more generous. Just as the union members cannot waive their rights under FML and ADA and other federal laws in the bargaining agreement, neither should we be required to give up ours.

I would like to simply issue a notice to Fire that we will be implementing the policy as of, say, August 1, 2003. What do you think?

System

I'd think it all depends on what your collective bargaining agreement says, which means you'll probably need a lawyer to interpret it.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Shadowfax

I think you shoot yourself in the foot if you issue a notice to inploement Aug 1 - particularly when you stake out the position that this spring you were just implementing what had for all practical purposes been the policy all along. There are very few things you do not need to bargain over - no requirement you agree or capitulate - but do have to bargain. I wuold set it up to talk to them, excplain why it is not new, and why it is important to the co. I don't know your operation, but doubt this is that big a deal to them - except they may be getting greif from the members that they had no say. Even in non-union situations, it is often better to involve employees and make them think that you wer3e at least interested in theri position before you make changes. Good luck.

MS HR

I think the previous two posters are giving good advice.
The union is not, per se, wrong in requesting to negotiate the leave policy; you are not wrong, per se, for clarifying the policy.
Whether you are guilty of an unfair labor practice should best be precluded by a consult with your local labor attorney. It would be cheaper to do this than to fight a ULP.