October 20, 2011
Anibal Ramos, Director
Essex County Department of Citizen Services
18 Rector Street, Floor 9
Newark, NJ, 07102
Re: Step III Class Action Contractual Grievance
Coerced Contribution to Client Conference Calls
Article I. Purpose
Article VII. Discipline
Article XXV. Non-Discrimination
Article XLIX. Safety of Staff
Dear Mr. Ramos:
CWA Local 1081 submits this Step III Class Action Contractual Grievance on behalf of our members assigned to the Office of Medicaid Services to protest their being managerially coerced to participate in conference calls with office administrators that include agency clients making complaints about the workers' and/or County's services provided them.
Director Yvonne Davis did not respond to our Union's attached Step II Class Action Contractual Grievance of September 28, 2011 submitted in this exact respect.
The right of employees to have union representation at investigatory interviews was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1975 case (NLRB vs. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251, 88 LRRM 2689). These rights have become known as the Weingarten rights.
Employees have Weingarten rights only during investigatory interviews. An investigatory interview occurs when a supervisor questions an employee to obtain information which could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his or her conduct.
If an employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or other adverse consequences may result from what he or she says, the employee has the right to request Union representation. Management is not required to inform the employee of his/her Weingarten rights; it is the employees responsibility to know and request.
When the employee makes the request for a Union representative to be present management has three options:
(I) it can stop questioning until the representative
arrives.
(2) it can call off the interview or,
(3) it can tell the
employee that it will call off the interview unless the employee voluntarily
gives up his/her rights to a Union representative (an option the employee
should always refuse.)
Employers will often assert that the only role of a Union representative in an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion. The Supreme Court, however, clearly acknowledges a representative's right to assist and counsel workers during the interview.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that during an investigatory interview management must inform the Union representative of the subject of the interrogation. The representative must also be allowed to speak privately with the employee before the interview. During the questioning, the representative can interrupt to clarify a question or to object to confusing or intimidating tactics.
While the interview is in progress the representative can not tell the employee what to say but he/she may advise them on how to answer a question. At the end of the interview the Union representative can add information to support the employee's case.
The resolution CWA Local 1081 respectfully reiterates to this grievance consists of the County ensuring our Union's members' Weingarten rights are afforded them during all of the above cited conference calls with office administrators that include agency clients making complaints about the workers' and/or County's services provided them.
We seek a hearing in this regard.
Sincerely,
David H. Weiner, President
CWA Local 1081