The next union meeting is May 5th 2011 at 12th and C ave. At 1500 hours

April's Union Meeting

This month's Union Meeting will be held at 12th and C Avenue on April 7th at 5pm. See you there!

March 2011 Meeting

The next Union meeting will be at 5pm at 12th and C Avenue on Thursday, March 3rd. Bring your ideas for contract proposals.

2010-2011 Contract Settled

The membership voted to approve the proposed contract with the City that called for a 2.5% across-the-board pay raise and the addition of a 2.5% Step K. These pay increases will become effective on June 30, 2011. Also part of the agreement was a 10% increase in medical insurance premiums (which we have already been paying since the medical fund was running below a pre-determined stop-loss amount) and a one time use of 100 rounds of our practice ammunition to be used at a Firearms Qualification this summer. The Union membership voted 117-4 in favor for the contract terms. The City Council voted to approve the agreement last night (01/25/11) at the Council Meeting.

If members have any ideas for the next round of contract negotiations please forward them to the Executive Board and/or be sure to attend the upcoming monthly meetings.

Congratulations to Union President Brian Morris!

Congratulations are in order for Detective Brian Morris being promoted to the rank of Lieutenant. Miracles do happen after all. Congrats, Brian!

Did You Know...?

Did you know that the officers of the Lawton Police Department have been represented by a Union and working under Collective Bargaining Agreements since 1975?

There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, or Know Your Weingarten Rights

The labor law that guarantees you the right to have a Union Representative present during an investigatory interview is known as your Weingarten Rights. These rights were established in a ruling based on the 1975 case of National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten. In that case a private employer denied an employee’s request for union representation during a disciplinary interview. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to representation in disciplinary interviews was a necessary part of the collective bargaining process. 

The original incident prompting the case law is quite interesting.

J. Weingarten, Inc. operated a chain of around 100 retail stores. Many of the stores had lunch counters that provided food for take-out or to be eaten on the premises. Employees of the company were represented for collective bargaining purposes by Retail Clerks Union, Local 455. One of the employees, Leura Collins, worked at a lunch counter at one of the stores from 1961 to 1970 when she was transferred to the lobby operation at a different store. Also employed by Weingarten were security personnel known as "Loss Prevention Specialists" who worked undercover in all stores to guard against loss from shoplifting and employee theft. 

In June 1972, Loss Prevention Specialist Hardy, without the knowledge of the store manager, spent two days observing the lobby operation at the store location where Collins now worked. Hardy was investigating a report that Collins was taking money from a cash register. When Hardy's personal surveillance of Collins at work turned up no evidence to support the report, Hardy disclosed his presence to the store manager and reported that he could find nothing wrong. The store manager then told him that a fellow lobby employee of Collins had just reported that Collins had purchased a box of chicken that sold for $2.98, but had placed only $1 in the cash register. Collins was summoned to an interview with Specialist Hardy and the store manager, and Hardy questioned her. Several times during the questioning she asked the store manager to call the Union Shop-Steward or some other union representative to the interview, however her requests were denied.

Collins admitted that she had purchased some chicken, a loaf of bread, and some cake which she said she paid for and donated to her church for a church dinner. She explained that she purchased four pieces of chicken for which the price was $1, but that because the lobby department was out of the small-sized boxes in which such purchases were usually packaged she put the chicken into the larger box normally used for packaging larger quantities. Specialist Hardy left the interview to check Collins' explanation with the fellow employee who had reported Collins. This employee confirmed that the lobby department had run out of small boxes and also said that she did not know how many pieces of chicken Collins had put in the larger box. Specialist Hardy returned to the interview, told Collins that her explanation had checked out, that he was sorry if he had inconvenienced her, and that the matter was closed.

Collins thereupon burst into tears and blurted out that the only thing she had ever received from the store without paying for it was her free lunch. This revelation surprised the store manager and Hardy because, although free lunches had been provided at Collins' previous store, actual company policy was not to provide free lunches at stores operating lobby departments. In consequence, the store manager and Specialist Hardy interrogated Collins about violations of the policy in the lobby department at the previous store. Collins again asked that a Shop Steward be called to the interview, but the store manager denied her request. Based on her answers to his questions, Specialist Hardy prepared a written statement which included a computation that Collins owed the store approximately $160 for lunches. Collins refused to sign the statement. 

At trial it was discovered that Collins, as well as most, if not all, employees in the lobby department of Collins' current store location, including the manager of that department, took lunch from the lobby without paying for it, because no contrary policy was ever made known to them. Further, when company headquarters advised Specialist Hardy by telephone during the interview that headquarters itself was uncertain whether the policy against providing free lunches at lobby departments was in effect at the current store where Collins was employed he terminated his interrogation of Collins. The store manager asked Collins not to discuss the matter with anyone because he considered it a private matter between her and the company and of no concern to others. Collins, however, reported the details of the interview fully to her Shop Steward and other Union representatives, and an unfair labor practice proceeding resulted leading to the landmark labor decision establishing Weingarten Rights.

In the Supreme Court's ruling they remarked that, “Requiring a lone employee to attend an investigatory interview which he reasonably believes may result in the imposition of discipline perpetuates the inequality the [National Labor Relations] Act was designed to eliminate, and bars recourse to the safeguards the Act provided ‘to redress the perceived imbalance of economic power between labor and management.’”

What It Means To You

To invoke your Weingarten Rights the officer being investigated/interviewed must reasonably believe that the interview will result in disciplinary action for the right to representation to exist. It is the reasonable belief of the employee, not the employer, which dictates whether an employee is entitled to representation. If the employee reasonably believes that discipline may result from the interview, the employee is entitled to representation even if the employer had no intention whatsoever to impose discipline.

The right to representation by a labor organization applies even when the interview is being conducted as part of a criminal investigation, and even when the interview is being conducted by an outside agency such as a the DA's office, OSBI, FBI, etc. However, if the employer assures the employee that no discipline will result from the interview and does not violate that pledge, no right to representation exists,  and mere “general anxiety” over whether discipline could possibly result is not enough to trigger the right to representation. Absent a reasonable belief that discipline could result, routine supervisor-employee interactions do not trigger the Weingarten rule.

What If They Say You Are Just a Witness?

Since Weingarten rights hinge on the employee’s reasonable belief that discipline could result from an interview, the employer’s designation of an employee as a “witness” will not necessarily eliminate Weingarten rights.

The right to representation only exists where the employer is eliciting information from the employee. However, the right to representation does apply to an interview that turns into an investigatory session, even if it was originally convened to advise the employee of previously determined discipline.

The right to representation exists even where the employer is eliciting information in written form, i.e. when the employer is compelling an employee to prepare a report that will be used in a disciplinary investigation. A case decided by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board has even held that Weingarten rights apply when an employer is requesting that an employee submit to drug testing as part of a disciplinary investigation.

The Basics

The employee must request such representation. Unlike the protections of the Garrity rule, Weingarten rights are not automatic; they must be invoked by the employee.

Most states hold that once an employee makes a request for union representation, the employer has three options: (1) grant the request; (2) discontinue the interview; or (3) offer the employee the choice of continuing the interview unaccompanied by a Union representative or having no interview at all and thereby dispensing with any benefits that the interview might have conferred on the employee.

The employer does not select the Weingarten representative. The employer does not have the right to select the representative who assists the employee during the disciplinary interview. Though there is some conflict among states on the issue, the usual rule is that the employee, not the labor organization, is entitled to pick the particular representative. While there is no right under Weingarten to representation by a private attorney, if it chooses, the labor organization has the right to select an attorney as its representative for the disciplinary interview.

The right to representation exists regardless of rank, so long as the employee is represented by a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes.

The exercise of the right to representation cannot unduly interfere with legitimate needs of the employer.  In order to establish undue interference with its operations, the employer must prove that a delay in the interview would be unreasonable under all of the circumstances or endanger the investigation. To establish that a delay in the investigation would interfere with its legitimate needs, an employer must prove that it has a need for an “efficient and timely investigatory process” that would be undermined by the requested delay in the interview. An employer is clearly on shaky ground in demanding that the employee immediately find a union representative, and then insisting on proceeding with the interview when no representative can be immediately located. For example, in one police case, a labor relations board found a Weingarten violation where a police union representative’s job duties required him to leave an interview and the police chief gave the employee “two minutes” to find another representative.

The Role Of The Representative In Disciplinary Interviews

The notion that an employer has the right to order a labor representative to be simply silent during a disciplinary interview has long been dispelled.

It's generally accepted that your Union Representative the right to:

• Consult with the officer prior to the interview. The Supreme Court’s Weingarten decision indicates that the right to representation includes the ability of the representative to consult with the employee prior to the interview, and no court or labor board has ever held to the contrary under state law.
• Determine what the charges are prior to the interview. Again, the Supreme Court’s Weingarten decision itself supports the notion that the representative has the right to determine the charges against the employee prior to the interview. State labor boards have repeatedly supported this notion.
• Privately consult with the officer during the interview. Most states hold that Weingarten rights include the right of the Representative to privately consult with the employee during the interview, so long as the consultation does not unduly disrupt the interview.
• Offer investigatory leads at the conclusion of the interview. The Supreme Court’s Weingarten decision also envisions the representative offering investigatory leads at the conclusion of a disciplinary interview. State labor boards have uniformly accepted this construction of the right to representation.
• Offer mitigating circumstances at the conclusion of the interview. Again, Weingarten itself describes the role of the union representatives as including the ability to offer mitigating circumstances at the conclusion of the interview, a concept accepted by state labor boards.