Tomorrow the first Board will convene in San Francisco. We are scheduled to hear five third steps in this session. I know five doesn't sound like a huge number, but consider this; this will be more than double the monthly hearings currently completed by the Company. Even still this Board has its work cut out for it with an estimated three hundred grievances pending the third step. This is far and away a better system than we are currently used to for the resolution of these grievances. It is my hope that once this system is functioning correctly we will see a reduction in violations, and consequently grievances, as the Company learns that the old system of doing what they want and waiting two or three years, or longer before resolution is reached will have passed. Over the long term this should also solve the continuing problem of holding people out of service and then offering a return to work deal involving discipline and suspension time for lesser infractions.
Why would the Company agree to a system such as the Joint Board? The Company should realize a cost savings directly through a unified enforcement of the contract which will reduce overtime bypass and other payments for one reason. Another hidden cost item involves employee morale. An old but true cliché is "Justice delayed is justice denied". When members feel they have no legitimate vehicle to address contract violations they get angry, apathetic, and a myriad of other negative emotions. This impacts the bottom line through increased casual sick leave usage as well as a decrease in overall production. I'm not so naïve as to believe this one agreement alone will change the culture and magically improve morale given our history, but this is a step in the right direction.
How this Board came about still amazes me. To achieve an improvement to language like this, something many members have voiced concerns about for years, before the entire package is finalized is unprecedented in Section Six bargaining. I remember sitting on the Screening Committee for the 2000 agreement with the IAM and there were hundreds of proposals to substantially change the third step of the grievance procedure. All that was achieved then was an addition of time limits to the procedure that accomplished nothing over the last decade as the volume of grievances continued to climb. This agreement speaks volumes to the influence the IBT has in representational settings.
I will try to update you after the Board meets to let you know how the first session went. After the Board we are scheduled to negotiate until the end of the week.
That's all for now,
Bob
