UPE GOVERNING BOARD ELECTIONS RESULTS
BALLOTS were counted last night at the UPE union hall during the Stewards Council meeting. All of the races were close. The results are as follows:
UPE COURT OFFICE TECHNICAL SPECIALIZED CHAPTER
- Andrea Howard – Governing Board Director Elect - 58%
- Paul McGee - 42%
UPE COURT DEPUTY CLERK CHAPTER
- Suzette Cade - Governing Board Director Elect - 40%
- Nancy Wallace - Governing Board Director Elect - 32%
- Shawn Boxer - 28%
UPE 005 OFFICE TECHNICAL BARGAINING UNIT CHAPTER 1
- Melodie Poust - Governing Board Director Elect - 31%
- Ed Lew - Governing Board Director Elect - 31%
- Queen Robinson - 24%
- Loyce Randell - 14%
UPE 005 OFFICE TECHNICAL BARGAINING UNIT CHAPTER 2
- Greg Bullock - Governing Board Director Elect - 32%
- Janet Murchison - Governing Board Director Elect - 25%
- David Silva - 24%
- Jeannie Deskins - 11%
- Yvette Carson - 8%
United Public Employees would like to thank all of the candidates for their participation, time, and efforts in their run for Governing Board Director for their Bargaining Unit. UPE is proud to have a UPE membership who believes in their Union and our pursuit in the protection and welfare of our UPE members, the working class!
If you would like to become more active and are interested in your workplace rights, please attend Stewards Trainings and your Governing Board meetings. Please check the UPE website for dates and times.
ATTENTION UPE MEMBERS
MEET AND CONFER UPDATE
On October 21, 2011 your Court Office-Technical Governing Board met with the Court to discuss impact on the Court’s policy which would allow the unrepresented employees to demote back into the bargaining unit in order to avoid layoffs; only if they held prior permanent status in a position in the bargaining unit. Also present were Cedric Porter, Business Agent for UPE, Local #1 and Ted Somera, Executive Director.
Your Governing Board brought up many concerns that have arisen as a result of this new policy. One such concern was, were there any vacancies in which they could demote back into or would this result in the layoff of a current employee in that classification? The Court responded ‘NO’. The Court continued their response in which they were going to reclassify individuals. With their knowledge and understanding of your contract, the Court Governing Board stated that this would be a violation of the current agreement between UPE, Local #1 and Sacramento Superior Court. The only provision in the contract that allows for employees to demote back into a classification in which they held prior status was in the layoff section; and that these individuals would not be allowed to do so even under a reclassification as you can only reclassify a position not the person. This process the Court was proposing would be a different meet and confer, as the Court noticed us only to meet over ‘layoff of unrepresented employees’. Therefore, if the court proceeded with a reclassification, then the Court would have to comply with 15.02 TRANSFERS in the current contract as the reclassification would create new vacancies. This was a point of contention at the meet and confers. This was due to the Court’s position as it is their management rights to reclassify and do as they please. Your union’s position is that the court must comply with the expressed terms and conditions within the contract and that we were prepared to go to expedited arbitration over this matter. On 11/18 the Court came back and agreed to follow the contract and post the vacant positions in accordance to 15.02 on the contract. The Court also acknowledged that there are over 100 vacant positions in different classification within the UPE Office- Technical bargaining unit.
Unfortunately, this is the only area in which the Court has agreed to, as it pertains to your contract language. Their most gross violations of the contract would be in the ‘Seniority’ section 17.07. Here the Court is going to force upon us that these employees will carry their seniority in which they acquired when they were unrepresented back into the classification in which they did not earn the seniority. We believe our contract is clear and this is their ill attempt in protecting “management”, as our members do not get the luxury in carrying their seniority when they promote to a higher classification for any purpose.
Mr. Cedric Porter will be preparing our Arbitration case as we have expressed our displeasure to the Court in their attempt in violating our contract. Your UPE Office-Technical Governing Board has vowed to protect our member’s rights by insuring that the employer complies with the expressed terms of our agreement
