The beauty (and the frustrating part) of the English language is that despite its simplicity, it can leave so much to interpretation.  Words that seem clear when written are frequently understood to mean something else after the fact.  Such was the case in Ramsey County and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49.

In this case, the parties agreed, in mediation, to reduce the years between step movement from five years to four, effective January 1, 2023.  What once was a 14-year longevity step became 13, and so on.

With regard to step advancement, it was the County’s longstanding and consistent practice and policy for step movement to take place on an employee’s anniversary date for all employees in all bargaining units.  The County intended for that policy to continue within this bargaining unit even with the changes in steps at the beginning of the year, and that employees would not advance to the next available seniority date until their anniversary dates.  The union, however, had different ideas for how step advancement would work, following the change in language.

The union asserted that “it was clear to all concerned on the day the tentative agreement was reached…that all longevity steps were effective on the first full pay period following January 1, 2023.”  It believed that with the changing of language, those employees who would have already reached the new longevity steps the year previous would automatically be moved to the new longevity step at the beginning of the year.

The County, on the other hand, argued that while the longevity steps had changed, its practice of awarding step advancement had not; it had the same policy language on step advancement as before.  The County argued that the plain language of the agreement shows that the change in steps was only to be effective after the first of the year, and not retroactively.

In his decision, Arbitrator Jacobs stated this was “an almost classic case of a misunderstanding by both parties as to what the new language meant or how it was to be applied.”  There was no discussion of immediate advancement, or the possibility of “leapfrogging” that often takes place when steps are contracted.  Arbitrator Jacobs noted that there was no language “altering the past understanding and practice that the adjustments are to be made on the employee’s anniversary date.”  And while some employees were “negatively” impacted by the language, “that cannot be ‘fixed’ through arbitration,” said the arbitrator.

While his decision was fairly straightforward, Arbitrator made several noteworthy points about some of the arguments made by the parties.  First, he stated that the union’s argument that it would not have agreed to the language change if this was the end result carried little weight, as there was no evidence of bad faith bargaining by the County.  Second, the County’s argument that the Union’s desired result would be difficult to administrate did not impact the decision, as the contract language was the most important.  Third, the County’s argument that no other bargaining units’ step increases functioned in the way the union desired also had no impact on the result, as all contracts are negotiated individually, and the result was “based on its own unique facts.”

The clear language of the contract fortunately won out during the arbitration, and the union was unable to receive through arbitration that which it could not receive in negotiations.  When making major changes to salary schedules, it is important for the parties to be on the same page with how the changes will impact employees.  If you or your organization need assistance with the negotiation of contract language or defending that language in arbitration, contact Wiley Reber Law, for negotiations experience that works.