It was really just a matter of time before grievances started to be filed over different working issues that popped up during the pandemic.  While many employers have had great success in working with unions on the changes that needed to be implemented after the Governor’s stay-at-home orders, there were bound to be differences of opinion in how contracts would be interpreted once employees were working from home for a prolonged period.

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office (“MEO”) hosted four separate on-line virtual meetings using Teams software from May to June 2020.  The meetings were set up to review changes in operations, and employees were paid for attending the meetings, including overtime if employees had already worked their scheduled hours for the week.

The contract between Hennepin County and AFSCME covering the employees working at the MEO had language pertaining to call-back pay.  It states, “Employees called to the work site by the EMPLOYER shall be paid for hours actually worked at their BASE PAY RATE but not less than three (3) hours.  Such payments shall be in cash.”

Those who have worked with collective bargaining agreements understand that call-back pay provisions of collective bargaining agreements traditionally are agreed to in order to compensate employees for the time and expense of traveling to and from the worksite.  These provisions are to protect employees from having to travel a great distance to only be paid for a small amount of work.

In AFSCME, Council 5, Locals 34, 2822 and 2864 and Hennepin County, the Union alleged that when employees were called to virtual meetings, they were not only entitled to their regular rate of pay, but also the minimum hours of pay under the call-back provision of their contract.

The evidence at the hearing showed that prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, all work meetings were conducted on-site at the MEO building in downtown Minneapolis.  In addition, it showed that attendance of the meetings not required except for employees who were scheduled to work during one of the meetings.  The Union argued that the intent of the language, that had obviously been negotiated prior to the pandemic, was to compensate employees for work performed outside of their regular shift.  The Union, however, provided no evidence of bargaining history to show that the words of the contract meant something different than what they actually said.

In the end, Arbitrator Wallin found that the words, “…called to the work site…” meant exactly that, and the employees should not be paid additional money just because they were attending a meeting during off-duty hours.

While this seems like an open-and-shut case, employers can expect to see an abundance of grievances such as this given the number of changes that have occurred in the workplace as a result of the pandemic since March 2020.  It is imperative that employers be mindful of contract language that could impact changes in operation, and, if the situation calls for it, modify plans, or negotiate temporary language changes to allow business to continue.

If you, or your organization, need assistance with the interpretation of contract language and how it affects your operations, contact the Wiley Law Office, for labor relations advice that works.