August 25, 2003

GUILD GRIEVES WORKLOADS

CAUSED BY TAPE EDITING

(THREE TIMES)

_______________

“The clip-editing that our employees are trained to do

makes their jobs easier.”

                                                                         -Karen Scott

_____________________

             We bet you’ve been wondering what’s been going on since we all got together on July 10 and you informed Guild officials how horrific the workloads have become since you have been required to edit your own tape. 

Since that time, the Newspaper Guild of New York has been wrangling with WPIX officials, trying to wrestle them – thus far, unsuccessfully – to the grievance table, while PIX has been playing a semantics game. 

Several months ago, Local Guild Representative Bob Townsend was informed by WPIX representatives that they wanted grievances filed directly with Jim Kulas, the Tribune Company’s Senior Labor Counsel in Chicago. So that’s what we did on July 16, six days after you told us how unreasonable the workloads have become as a result of the new tape-editing system. 

Under the terms of the Guild’s contract with PIX, “a grievance must be presented within fifteen (15) days after the aggrieved party has or should have had knowledge of the alleged violation. . . .” And when that is done, which it was, the station “agrees to meet with the committee within five (5) days after request for such meeting.” 

When Townsend didn’t hear from Attorney Kulas or any WPIX management within fifteen days of making a request for a grievance meeting, he telephoned Jim Kulas in Chicago on July 31. Kulas said there was a response to Townsend’s grievance request in the mail. 

You won’t believe the response. 

In the letter, dated July 28 and received at the Guild on August 1, Kulas wrote: “I fail to understand the content and meaning of your letter. First, you indicate that you are advising me of a grievance that you are raising. However, no one at WPIX is aware that a grievance is pending.” 

Very strange. You see, WPIX Human Resources Director Jean Maye was copied on the grievance meeting request that was sent to Kulas. 

Kulas went on to indicate that he’d prefer to have grievances filed with WPIX. 

O.K. So on August 4 the Guild filed the same grievance with Jean Maye. 

This time, when we didn’t even hear from Ms. Maye within fourteen days of filing the grievance, Townsend telephoned Ms. Maye on August 18. She acted surprised that we hadn’t received a written response from either News Director Karen Scott or Attorney Kulas. She said that they were preparing one. 

The response arrived a couple of days later in a letter from Karen Scott, dated August 19. Ms. Scott wrote that the Guild had gotten it wrong again, the grievance should have been addressed to her. 

“First of all, as News Director,” she wrote, “I am the person to whom grievances should be directed involving employees in this department.” 

This was also a little more than disconcerting because Ms. Scott had been copied on the grievance letter to Ms. Maye. It would appear nobody at WPIX can act on anything that isn’t addressed to them, receiving a copy of the letter isn’t enough. 

Then – get this! – Ms. Scott had the moxie to suggest that the grievance hadn’t been filed in a timely fashion. Can you believe it? This coming from the friendly folks at WPIX, who are required to grant us a grievance meeting within five days of a request, and haven’t sat down to talk to us about a grievance that was filed back on July 16. 

The grievance is based on a paragraph in ARTICLE I, Section 2, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that reads: “If, at any time, in the opinion of an employee, the employee is given an unreasonable workload, relative to available time and individual ability, the matter may be taken up under the grievance and arbitration procedure.” 

            Ms. Scott wrote to Townsend: “Further, the section of the contract you cite in your most recent letter along with your reference to tape editing shows that you lack understanding of our industry and the work of the employees you represent. The clip-editing that our employees are trained to do makes their jobs easier.” 

            Townsend wrote back to Ms. Scott: “Well, there were 23 employees at the meeting (of July 10) who disagreed with you.” 

            Deeper in her letter to Townsend, Ms. Scott wrote: “I hope this is not being used as a way to negotiate more money for employees as you tried to do during our last negotiations. If that is you motive, negotiations will commence next year.” 

            Townsend replied: “It isn’t. 

            “If we ever get to the grievance table, the remedy we will be suggesting will be the hiring of more staff in certain areas to reduce the over-burdensome workloads of our represented employees, and adequate training. We would probably also suggest that the current dedicated staff be given some additional compensation in the interim until the workload becomes reasonable. But our goal is to ensure our members have a workload that is reasonable.” 

            Ms. Scott wrote: “Despite our position, I would be happy to schedule a meeting to discuss the work of our employees. All you have to do is contact my office with dates you could attend a short meeting.” 

            (Note how Ms. Scott used the word “discuss” as opposed to hearing our grievance and note how she inserted the word “short” in her second reference to the meeting. Apparently, she has no intention of devoting more than a “short” time to “discuss the work of our employees.”) 

            Townsend responded: “I would be available Wednesday, August 27, or Thursday, August 28, at the usual time of 11 a.m. Please be advised that the Guild will consider the meeting to be a grievance session. If you disagree with that concept, please let me know and we will file for arbitration.” 

            Oh, by the way, in the latest communication to Ms. Scott, the Guild for, the third time, filed the grievance WPIX has been refusing to acknowledge. 

            The union is committed to resolving this problem.