In the yin yang world of public outrage, Norwalk’s, the NMEA is all geared up to fight a proposal to codify the relationship between the Friends of the Museum and the City. Their position, according to Koch’s article, is that somehow, this codification impugns the job description of the Curator.
“It came up in a discussion I was having with the (city’s) personnel director,” Brey said. “I’ve made it clear, as I have for months, that any attempts to reassign the duties of the curator position to any non-union person, whether it be The Friends or anybody else, is a violation of the Municipal Employees Relations Act, and we would file a prohibitive practices complaint.”
Brey’s comments come a day after Norwalk Historical Commission Chairman Peter A. Bondi briefed fellow commissioners on where the draft operating agreement put forward by The Friends stands.
Of course the Friend’s proposal does nothing of the sort. It acknowledges that duties already performed and historically performed by the Friends of the Museum.
But I’ll entertain Brey’s concerns for a moment. What duties has Brey identified that are being reassigned? And doesn’t the NMEA Contract specifically allow for duties to be reassigned? Why, yes it does.
Section 3. Review of Positions.
If the City makes a material change in the duties of an existing job on or after the
implementation of this Agreement:(1) the City shall notify the Union in writing; and
(2) upon receiving such notice, or without such notice and on its own
initiative, the Union may request that the job be reclassified.The Department Head to whom the initial reclassification questionnaire is submitted for
review shall provide his/her formal response to the questionnaire within thirty (30)
calendar days of the presentation of the questionnaire to the Department Head by the
employee or NMEA representative as described further below.The Union’s request for reclassification request must be in writing and submitted by the
Union to the City’s Director of Personnel and Labor Relations who shall review the basis
for the request and meet with the Union to discuss whether the change in duties is so
substantial as to warrant a change in salary grade. In the event that the Director of
Personnel and Labor Relations decides that the change in duties is not so substantial as to
warrant the change in salary grade specified in the request, then the Director of Personnel
and Labor Relations shall notify the Association as to the specific reasons for theSection 3. Review of Positions.
If the City makes a material change in the duties of an existing job on or after the
implementation of this Agreement:(1) the City shall notify the Union in writing; and
(2) upon receiving such notice, or without such notice and on its own
initiative, the Union may request that the job be reclassified.The Department Head to whom the initial reclassification questionnaire is submitted for
review shall provide his/her formal response to the questionnaire within thirty (30)
calendar days of the presentation of the questionnaire to the Department Head by the
employee or NMEA representative as described further below.The Union’s request for reclassification request must be in writing and submitted by the
Union to the City’s Director of Personnel and Labor Relations who shall review the basis
for the request and meet with the Union to discuss whether the change in duties is so
substantial as to warrant a change in salary grade. In the event that the Director of
Personnel and Labor Relations decides that the change in duties is not so substantial as to
warrant the change in salary grade specified in the request, then the Director of Personnel
and Labor Relations shall notify the Association as to the specific reasons for the
decision in writing.If the Director and authorized representatives of the Association mutually agree to
recommend reclassification of the job, the change(s) shall be presented to the Mayor for
approval, subject to ratification by the Common Council. The City shall give a formal
decision on all such requests within ninety (90) calendar days from its receipt of such
request by the City’s Director of Personnel and Labor Relations. If the Director of
Personnel and Labor Relations and authorized representative of the Association mutually
agree to recommend reclassification of the job, the recommendation shall be presented to
the Mayor within five (5) working days of said agreement. The Mayor shall have thirty
(30) calendar days from the time it is presented by the Director to respond. If the Mayor
approves the request, it shall be presented to Common Council for approval at its next
available meeting. If the City fails to give a formal decision within ninety (90) days from
its receipt by the City’s Director of Personnel and Labor Relations, then the request shall,
at the option of the Association, be deemed to have been denied and the Association may
pursue the matter through Step 3 of the grievance procedure as described further below.
And oh by the way this contract looks like it’s up for renewal since the contract on the Norwalk City web site covers the period of June 2002- through June 2006. Maybe its time to define that you can’t have a municipal union employee functioning without a department head, and thus the Curator position is actual that of a department head and therefor should be exempt from the collective bargaining unit.
Then there’s the ham fisted way in which Peter Bondi addressed the Friends Proposal. Instead of looking out for the City by encouraging an outside group to assume operational and financial responsibility, he provided the bizarre announcement that the union has declined the proposal. Funny how the union, which does not assume liability for anything the city does, has a sudden voice on an issue that the City needs to work through. The one page proposal is to codify the existing relationship between the Friends and the City. (and if the Friends would like to forward a copy for discussion here, it would be welcome) Until a proposal comes forth addressing the duties of the Curator, they have nothing on which to deliberate.
Said Bondi: “I’ve also told them that the union has declined it. So, they’ll take it up at the meeting. But it’s going through all the proper channels where it has to go.”
Why is the chair of the Historic Commission completely oblivious to what the proposal actually says? Why is the chair of the Historic Commission taking “advice” from a Union lawyer when no proposal has been discussed even by the Common Council?
If this represents the tact that Peter Bondi is going to take in regards to codifying Museum operations, we are in trouble. I attended the Historic Commission meeting last Wednesday, and there’s much more outrage to post about from that meeting. Why leave that to a Friday afternoon news dump? So look for that over the weekend.
