May 26 Bargaining Session
The parties convened for a bargaining session focused on policy implementation during bargaining, union rights and communication, dues deductions, inclement weather procedures, political belief protections, transition and delayed separation programs, and ongoing article counterproposals. The session included extensive discussion regarding management authority, operational procedures, employee protections, and the relationship between policies and bargaining obligations.
Opening Discussion – Policy Changes During BargainingThe session began with discussion regarding the Employer’s implementation or revision of policies during active bargaining. WPEA expressed concern that policy updates occurring during negotiations could interfere with bargaining topics already under discussion and create the appearance that the Employer was attempting to establish operational positions outside of the bargaining process.
Management responded that the policy revisions being discussed were intended primarily to reflect legal updates, clarify language, or improve operational consistency rather than introduce substantive operational changes. WPEA disagreed with that characterization and maintained that the union viewed some of the revisions as substantive changes affecting negotiable subjects.
The union requested that the Employer delay implementation of policy revisions until bargaining was completed. Management stated that nothing in the contract limited the Employer’s ability to revise policies when appropriate and noted that any bargaining obligations arising from policy impacts could be addressed through impact bargaining processes.
The parties discussed notice requirements and timelines, including references to the existing 21-day notice language. WPEA indicated it intended to file a demand to bargain regarding the issue. Management reiterated the hierarchy of law, contract language, and policy, explaining that policies operate beneath contractual and statutory requirements.
Union ProposalsArticle 10 – Labor Management Communication Committee (LMCC)WPEA reviewed revisions and formatting changes related to Article 10 and indicated willingness to tentatively agree to the Employer’s most recent proposal. The discussion included clarification regarding highlighted edits, rejected language, and formatting structure.
Article 9 – Current Contract LanguageThe parties discussed maintaining current contract language for Article 9 and explored whether tentative agreement could be reached without additional revisions.
Article 2 – Dues DeductionThe union proposed striking portions of the dues deduction language related to employee movement between employers or bargaining units.
Management explained that dues deduction complications arise because separate legislative entities operate separate accounting and payroll systems. The Employer stated that when employees transfer between employers or bargaining units, employees are typically provided with a new employee orientation and an opportunity to complete new authorization forms.
WPEA expressed concern that the current process creates confusion for transferring employees and questioned why union dues authorizations are treated differently from other voluntary payroll deductions. The union emphasized that dues authorization is fundamentally union business and sought revisions to provide greater continuity for employees moving between represented positions.
Management maintained its position that operational and accounting requirements necessitate separate processing and stated that employees should have the opportunity to affirm or discontinue membership when transitioning between employers. The Employer indicated it would gather additional operational information during caucus regarding how other voluntary deductions are handled.
The discussion also addressed questions regarding representation authority when employees move outside the bargaining unit and whether the contract governs those situations.
Article 3 – Union Rights and ActivitiesWPEA proposed revisions throughout Article 3, including several grammatical and organizational changes as well as substantive clarifications.
Section 3.4 – Employer Meetings and PoliciesThe union explained that employees are sometimes uncertain whether mandatory meetings are disciplinary in nature. WPEA proposed language requiring the Employer to explicitly state when a meeting is disciplinary versus informational in order to reduce employee anxiety and confusion surrounding short-notice meetings.
The union also reintroduced language regarding policy communication and notice obligations, emphasizing concerns about transparency and employee understanding.
Section 3.6 – New Employee Orientation (NEO)WPEA proposed allowing two shop stewards to participate in NEO sessions rather than limiting attendance to one representative. The union stated this would assist with steward training and improve union outreach to new employees.
Management did not raise immediate substantive objections during the initial discussion.
Article 7 – Inclement WeatherWPEA introduced proposals related to inclement weather procedures and employee leave flexibility.
Section 7.1The union proposed removing the final sentence of the section and relocating or restructuring related language elsewhere in the article.
Section 7.2WPEA proposed language modeled after another state contract that would allow greater flexibility and local discretion regarding hazardous weather conditions. The union explained that weather conditions affecting employees commuting from Tacoma, Seattle, or other areas may differ significantly from conditions in Olympia.
WPEA provided examples of employees encountering dangerous commuting conditions, including vehicle accidents caused by hazardous weather, and emphasized that employees should have greater ability to work with management to determine whether travel conditions are safe.
The union also referenced weather emergencies such as snow, flooding, and earthquakes as circumstances where employees may need flexibility to remain home safely.
Sections 7.3 and 7.4The union proposed revisions related to leave usage order during weather-related closures or delays. WPEA advocated for allowing employees discretion in selecting the order of leave usage rather than requiring a predetermined sequence. The union noted that newer employees with limited leave balances may be disproportionately affected under the current structure.
The proposals also sought greater flexibility regarding tardiness caused by hazardous conditions.
Management indicated it had no immediate questions during the presentation and stated it would respond with counters at a later session.
Employer Counterproposals and ResponsesArticle 5 – Non-Discrimination and Political BeliefsManagement presented a counterproposal related to political belief protections and grievance procedures.
The Employer acknowledged that political beliefs are a sensitive and highly visible issue within the legislative work environment, particularly given the nature of caucus operations and political activity. However, management stated it was not interested in expanding grievance rights under this article beyond the current structure.
The Employer noted that no formal issues had arisen under the article requiring modification and stated that existing internal discrimination investigation processes are taken seriously and remain appropriate for handling such concerns.
WPEA continued to express concern that employees may fear retaliation or hostility related to political affiliations or participation in political activities outside the workplace.
Preamble and Article 16 – Current Contract LanguageManagement proposed maintaining current contract language for both the Preamble and Article 16 (Entire Agreement). The parties discussed tentative agreement possibilities for these provisions.
Transition Pool and Delayed Separation Program (Article X)Management proposed restructuring language related to the transition pool and delayed separation program by moving the provisions into a standalone article for clarity and organization.
The Employer explained that the transition pool language specifically applies to Senate Legislative Assistants (LAs) and stated that most of the proposal involved reorganizing existing language rather than creating entirely new provisions.
Key discussion points included:
The parties discussed operational details regarding:
Union representatives asked questions regarding how notice of separation or transition is typically communicated and how staffing decisions occur in practice. The parties acknowledged that staffing transitions often depend heavily on individual senators and may occur informally or with limited advance notice.
Caucus and Afternoon SessionThe parties caucused mid-morning before reconvening later in the session.
Upon return, management indicated it was prepared to tentatively agree to several articles, including:
Article 3 Counterproposal #2Management presented a revised counterproposal to Article 3 with several changes and clarifications.
Key revisions included:
Management also indicated willingness to approve non-precedent-setting exceptions in rare situations.
Additional revisions included:
Overall and Next StepsThis bargaining session focused heavily on:
Moving forward, the parties are expected to:
The parties convened for a bargaining session focused on policy implementation during bargaining, union rights and communication, dues deductions, inclement weather procedures, political belief protections, transition and delayed separation programs, and ongoing article counterproposals. The session included extensive discussion regarding management authority, operational procedures, employee protections, and the relationship between policies and bargaining obligations.
Opening Discussion – Policy Changes During BargainingThe session began with discussion regarding the Employer’s implementation or revision of policies during active bargaining. WPEA expressed concern that policy updates occurring during negotiations could interfere with bargaining topics already under discussion and create the appearance that the Employer was attempting to establish operational positions outside of the bargaining process.
Management responded that the policy revisions being discussed were intended primarily to reflect legal updates, clarify language, or improve operational consistency rather than introduce substantive operational changes. WPEA disagreed with that characterization and maintained that the union viewed some of the revisions as substantive changes affecting negotiable subjects.
The union requested that the Employer delay implementation of policy revisions until bargaining was completed. Management stated that nothing in the contract limited the Employer’s ability to revise policies when appropriate and noted that any bargaining obligations arising from policy impacts could be addressed through impact bargaining processes.
The parties discussed notice requirements and timelines, including references to the existing 21-day notice language. WPEA indicated it intended to file a demand to bargain regarding the issue. Management reiterated the hierarchy of law, contract language, and policy, explaining that policies operate beneath contractual and statutory requirements.
Union ProposalsArticle 10 – Labor Management Communication Committee (LMCC)WPEA reviewed revisions and formatting changes related to Article 10 and indicated willingness to tentatively agree to the Employer’s most recent proposal. The discussion included clarification regarding highlighted edits, rejected language, and formatting structure.
Article 9 – Current Contract LanguageThe parties discussed maintaining current contract language for Article 9 and explored whether tentative agreement could be reached without additional revisions.
Article 2 – Dues DeductionThe union proposed striking portions of the dues deduction language related to employee movement between employers or bargaining units.
Management explained that dues deduction complications arise because separate legislative entities operate separate accounting and payroll systems. The Employer stated that when employees transfer between employers or bargaining units, employees are typically provided with a new employee orientation and an opportunity to complete new authorization forms.
WPEA expressed concern that the current process creates confusion for transferring employees and questioned why union dues authorizations are treated differently from other voluntary payroll deductions. The union emphasized that dues authorization is fundamentally union business and sought revisions to provide greater continuity for employees moving between represented positions.
Management maintained its position that operational and accounting requirements necessitate separate processing and stated that employees should have the opportunity to affirm or discontinue membership when transitioning between employers. The Employer indicated it would gather additional operational information during caucus regarding how other voluntary deductions are handled.
The discussion also addressed questions regarding representation authority when employees move outside the bargaining unit and whether the contract governs those situations.
Article 3 – Union Rights and ActivitiesWPEA proposed revisions throughout Article 3, including several grammatical and organizational changes as well as substantive clarifications.
Section 3.4 – Employer Meetings and PoliciesThe union explained that employees are sometimes uncertain whether mandatory meetings are disciplinary in nature. WPEA proposed language requiring the Employer to explicitly state when a meeting is disciplinary versus informational in order to reduce employee anxiety and confusion surrounding short-notice meetings.
The union also reintroduced language regarding policy communication and notice obligations, emphasizing concerns about transparency and employee understanding.
Section 3.6 – New Employee Orientation (NEO)WPEA proposed allowing two shop stewards to participate in NEO sessions rather than limiting attendance to one representative. The union stated this would assist with steward training and improve union outreach to new employees.
Management did not raise immediate substantive objections during the initial discussion.
Article 7 – Inclement WeatherWPEA introduced proposals related to inclement weather procedures and employee leave flexibility.
Section 7.1The union proposed removing the final sentence of the section and relocating or restructuring related language elsewhere in the article.
Section 7.2WPEA proposed language modeled after another state contract that would allow greater flexibility and local discretion regarding hazardous weather conditions. The union explained that weather conditions affecting employees commuting from Tacoma, Seattle, or other areas may differ significantly from conditions in Olympia.
WPEA provided examples of employees encountering dangerous commuting conditions, including vehicle accidents caused by hazardous weather, and emphasized that employees should have greater ability to work with management to determine whether travel conditions are safe.
The union also referenced weather emergencies such as snow, flooding, and earthquakes as circumstances where employees may need flexibility to remain home safely.
Sections 7.3 and 7.4The union proposed revisions related to leave usage order during weather-related closures or delays. WPEA advocated for allowing employees discretion in selecting the order of leave usage rather than requiring a predetermined sequence. The union noted that newer employees with limited leave balances may be disproportionately affected under the current structure.
The proposals also sought greater flexibility regarding tardiness caused by hazardous conditions.
Management indicated it had no immediate questions during the presentation and stated it would respond with counters at a later session.
Employer Counterproposals and ResponsesArticle 5 – Non-Discrimination and Political BeliefsManagement presented a counterproposal related to political belief protections and grievance procedures.
The Employer acknowledged that political beliefs are a sensitive and highly visible issue within the legislative work environment, particularly given the nature of caucus operations and political activity. However, management stated it was not interested in expanding grievance rights under this article beyond the current structure.
The Employer noted that no formal issues had arisen under the article requiring modification and stated that existing internal discrimination investigation processes are taken seriously and remain appropriate for handling such concerns.
WPEA continued to express concern that employees may fear retaliation or hostility related to political affiliations or participation in political activities outside the workplace.
Preamble and Article 16 – Current Contract LanguageManagement proposed maintaining current contract language for both the Preamble and Article 16 (Entire Agreement). The parties discussed tentative agreement possibilities for these provisions.
Transition Pool and Delayed Separation Program (Article X)Management proposed restructuring language related to the transition pool and delayed separation program by moving the provisions into a standalone article for clarity and organization.
The Employer explained that the transition pool language specifically applies to Senate Legislative Assistants (LAs) and stated that most of the proposal involved reorganizing existing language rather than creating entirely new provisions.
Key discussion points included:
- Clarifying that transition pool provisions apply specifically to Senate LAs
- Removing example language viewed as outdated or inconsistent
- Moving delayed separation provisions into a separate section
- Requiring employees seeking placement in the transition pool to submit their names and resumes to Senate HR
- Clarifying which employees are not eligible for participation
The parties discussed operational details regarding:
- How temporary positions would be assigned
- Whether retirement and healthcare benefits would continue during temporary assignments
- Notification timelines for layoffs, retirements, or transitions
- The informal and often unpredictable nature of legislative staffing transitions
Union representatives asked questions regarding how notice of separation or transition is typically communicated and how staffing decisions occur in practice. The parties acknowledged that staffing transitions often depend heavily on individual senators and may occur informally or with limited advance notice.
Caucus and Afternoon SessionThe parties caucused mid-morning before reconvening later in the session.
Upon return, management indicated it was prepared to tentatively agree to several articles, including:
- Article 10
- Article 9
- Article 17
- The Preamble
- Article 16
Article 3 Counterproposal #2Management presented a revised counterproposal to Article 3 with several changes and clarifications.
Key revisions included:
- Requiring notice to OSLR for representational activities and meetings
- Retaining OSLR tracking responsibilities for release time requests
- Reorganizing sections without introducing substantive new language in some cases
- Clarifying that employees may receive “reasonable paid time” for representational duties
Management also indicated willingness to approve non-precedent-setting exceptions in rare situations.
Additional revisions included:
- Accepting rephrasing proposed by the union
- Clarifying citation methods rather than referencing appendices
- Encouraging use of information requests to obtain Employer policies and materials
- Adding a new section clarifying the nature of Employer meetings
- Accepting the union’s proposal to allow up to two shop stewards for NEO participation
- Clarifying that NEO timelines refer to 90 calendar days
Overall and Next StepsThis bargaining session focused heavily on:
- Employer policy implementation during bargaining
- Union rights and representational access
- Dues deduction and employee transfers between employers
- Inclement weather procedures and leave flexibility
- Political belief protections and discrimination concerns
- Legislative staffing transition programs and delayed separation procedures
- Clarification and restructuring of existing contract language
- Administrative coordination and release time procedures
Moving forward, the parties are expected to:
- Continue bargaining over Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, and transition-related provisions
- Exchange additional counterproposals on inclement weather and union access language
- Continue discussing political belief protections and grievance rights
- Refine transition pool and delayed separation language
- Address remaining open articles, including Articles 1, 6, 11, 12, and 13
- Meet again on the scheduled future bargaining date to continue negotiations and review outstanding counters and tentative agreements
May 12 Bargaining Session
The parties convened for a bargaining session that focused primarily on union rights, workplace communication, management processes, mandatory bargaining subjects, labor-management committee operations, dues deductions, and workplace non-discrimination issues. The session included proposal presentations, management counterproposals, caucuses, and discussion regarding operational implementation and employee concerns.
Opening Session and LogisticsThe session began with introductions of participants from both bargaining teams. The parties confirmed meeting logistics and expectations regarding scheduling and communication, including notification procedures if cancellations became necessary.
Shortly after opening discussion, the Employer requested a caucus, with the parties reconvening later in the afternoon. Prior to caucusing, the union identified several articles intended for discussion, with representatives explaining that major priorities included overtime and remote work concerns.
Union ProposalsArticle 3 – Union Rights and ActivitiesWPEA introduced several proposals related to union access, communication, policy notification, and steward participation.
Section 3.2 – Use of Facilities and ResourcesThe union proposed language intended to provide clearer access to meeting space for union activities while continuing to follow existing workplace policies. WPEA explained that the proposal was intended to regularize access and provide more consistency regarding meeting space usage.
Section 3.4 – Employer PoliciesWPEA proposed adding definitions, timelines, and notice requirements related to Employer policy changes. The union explained that the goal was to ensure the union receives timely notice and sufficient information to engage in informed bargaining when policies affecting employees are implemented or modified.
The union also raised concerns regarding all-staff meetings, explaining that members sometimes react anxiously when meetings are scheduled without sufficient information or notice. WPEA stated that advance communication helps employees plan and reduces unnecessary concern among members.
Management responded that many of the protections and notice obligations referenced by the union already exist under current labor relations practices and contract provisions. The Employer stated that the union already receives notice and bargaining opportunities regarding mandatory subjects and that many timelines currently exceed the union’s proposed requirements.
The parties discussed whether the proposed language duplicated existing obligations or whether additional clarification would still be beneficial. WPEA indicated it may revise or amend portions of the proposal before resubmission.
Section 3.6 – Access to New Employee Orientation (NEO)The union proposed clarifying steward access to NEO sessions and changing language referencing “group settings” and business hours, which the union described as vague or confusing.
Management explained that current practice already provides union access within required timelines and described the administrative process used to coordinate steward participation, including regularly scheduled virtual and in-person sessions. The Employer expressed concern that expanded language could create additional administrative tracking obligations.
Both parties acknowledged alignment in the broader goal of ensuring union access to new employees while continuing discussion regarding the best operational structure.
Article 5 – Non-DiscriminationWPEA introduced proposals related to non-discrimination protections, specifically concerning personal political beliefs and activities outside the workplace.
The union explained that the proposal stemmed from concerns raised by employees regarding political tensions and workplace reactions surrounding issues such as the Israel conflict and local political matters like rent stabilization. WPEA emphasized that the proposal was not intended to conflict with ethics rules or allow political lobbying in the workplace, but rather to ensure employees are not subjected to retaliation, hostility, or adverse treatment based on lawful personal political views that do not interfere with job performance.
WPEA also proposed making such matters grievable, arguing that arbitrators are well-equipped to address workplace disputes involving these issues.
Management requested additional examples from the workplace to better understand the concerns being raised. Union representatives described employee fears regarding professional hostility and concerns that participation in political organizations or endorsement activities could negatively affect workplace treatment or employment status.
The Employer expressed interest in learning more about the issue and indicated willingness to continue the discussion in future sessions.
Article 8 – Mandatory Subjects of BargainingWPEA proposed increasing the number of union representatives permitted during bargaining-related processes from three to five and sought language ensuring virtual participation opportunities would not be unreasonably denied.
Later in the session, management indicated willingness to tentatively agree to Article 8.
Article 10 – Labor Management Communication Committee (LMCC)The union proposed several changes related to LMCC operations, including:
Employer Proposals and CounterproposalsArticle 2 – Dues DeductionManagement presented a proposal intended to clarify dues deduction procedures when employees move between employers, such as between legislative chambers.
The Employer explained that because separate employers and payroll/accounting systems are involved, employees transferring between employers would need to complete new authorization forms for dues deduction purposes.
Union representatives questioned how the process would apply in situations where employees are reassigned or transferred without voluntarily changing positions. Management responded that operationally, new onboarding and payroll processes would still require updated authorization documentation.
The discussion centered on balancing administrative requirements with continuity of union membership and dues deduction for affected employees.
Article 3 – Union Rights and Activities (Management Counter)Management presented a counterproposal addressing multiple operational and security concerns related to union activities.
Release Time CoordinationThe Employer proposed clarifying procedures for steward release time coordination through labor relations offices and supervision channels. Management stated that the proposal was intended to document and clarify existing practice rather than establish new standards.
Access and Meeting SpaceThe Employer proposed language clarifying that union access should not disrupt operations and that coordination with labor relations staff would occur for room reservations and meeting arrangements.
Management also proposed requiring union representatives visiting secure workspaces to be accompanied in restricted-access areas. WPEA expressed concern that management chaperoning union representatives could undermine confidential communication and organizing activities. Management responded that secure-space escort requirements already exist operationally and are necessary for security purposes.
The parties agreed further discussion and counterproposals would likely be needed on this issue.
Steward Access and NEOManagement proposed maintaining limitations on steward participation frequency and preserving group-based orientation structures. The Employer stated it was willing to provide release time for multiple orientation sessions annually but did not support unlimited steward access.
Article 18 – Term of AgreementManagement proposed routine updates to contract dates within the term-of-agreement article. The parties indicated general agreement on the proposed updates.
Afternoon Session and Continued DiscussionArticle 3 Counterproposal ReviewManagement presented a formal counterproposal to Article 3 with highlighted revisions reflecting discussions from earlier in the day.
The counterproposal included:
WPEA expressed interest in centralizing policy communication so future union representatives could easily access all relevant materials. Management acknowledged the concern but raised operational concerns about creating additional tracking and administrative obligations.
The parties also discussed flexibility for different work groups and acknowledged that some issues may require coordination with outside departments or agencies.
Management Rights and MeetingsManagement stated that while employee feedback regarding meetings is useful and has influenced operational practices, the Employer intends to retain management authority regarding scheduling and conducting meetings and is not willing to limit those rights through contract language.
Additional Tentative Agreements and Follow-UpManagement indicated willingness to tentatively agree to Article 8 and maintain current contract language for Article 4.
The parties also discussed additional counterproposals still being drafted and identified several areas requiring future discussion or clarification.
Toward the end of the session, the union indicated it did not intend to present additional proposals that day. Management offered flexibility regarding caucus scheduling at future bargaining sessions if additional preparation time is needed.
Overall and Next StepsThis bargaining session focused heavily on:
Moving forward, the parties are expected to:
The parties convened for a bargaining session that focused primarily on union rights, workplace communication, management processes, mandatory bargaining subjects, labor-management committee operations, dues deductions, and workplace non-discrimination issues. The session included proposal presentations, management counterproposals, caucuses, and discussion regarding operational implementation and employee concerns.
Opening Session and LogisticsThe session began with introductions of participants from both bargaining teams. The parties confirmed meeting logistics and expectations regarding scheduling and communication, including notification procedures if cancellations became necessary.
Shortly after opening discussion, the Employer requested a caucus, with the parties reconvening later in the afternoon. Prior to caucusing, the union identified several articles intended for discussion, with representatives explaining that major priorities included overtime and remote work concerns.
Union ProposalsArticle 3 – Union Rights and ActivitiesWPEA introduced several proposals related to union access, communication, policy notification, and steward participation.
Section 3.2 – Use of Facilities and ResourcesThe union proposed language intended to provide clearer access to meeting space for union activities while continuing to follow existing workplace policies. WPEA explained that the proposal was intended to regularize access and provide more consistency regarding meeting space usage.
Section 3.4 – Employer PoliciesWPEA proposed adding definitions, timelines, and notice requirements related to Employer policy changes. The union explained that the goal was to ensure the union receives timely notice and sufficient information to engage in informed bargaining when policies affecting employees are implemented or modified.
The union also raised concerns regarding all-staff meetings, explaining that members sometimes react anxiously when meetings are scheduled without sufficient information or notice. WPEA stated that advance communication helps employees plan and reduces unnecessary concern among members.
Management responded that many of the protections and notice obligations referenced by the union already exist under current labor relations practices and contract provisions. The Employer stated that the union already receives notice and bargaining opportunities regarding mandatory subjects and that many timelines currently exceed the union’s proposed requirements.
The parties discussed whether the proposed language duplicated existing obligations or whether additional clarification would still be beneficial. WPEA indicated it may revise or amend portions of the proposal before resubmission.
Section 3.6 – Access to New Employee Orientation (NEO)The union proposed clarifying steward access to NEO sessions and changing language referencing “group settings” and business hours, which the union described as vague or confusing.
Management explained that current practice already provides union access within required timelines and described the administrative process used to coordinate steward participation, including regularly scheduled virtual and in-person sessions. The Employer expressed concern that expanded language could create additional administrative tracking obligations.
Both parties acknowledged alignment in the broader goal of ensuring union access to new employees while continuing discussion regarding the best operational structure.
Article 5 – Non-DiscriminationWPEA introduced proposals related to non-discrimination protections, specifically concerning personal political beliefs and activities outside the workplace.
The union explained that the proposal stemmed from concerns raised by employees regarding political tensions and workplace reactions surrounding issues such as the Israel conflict and local political matters like rent stabilization. WPEA emphasized that the proposal was not intended to conflict with ethics rules or allow political lobbying in the workplace, but rather to ensure employees are not subjected to retaliation, hostility, or adverse treatment based on lawful personal political views that do not interfere with job performance.
WPEA also proposed making such matters grievable, arguing that arbitrators are well-equipped to address workplace disputes involving these issues.
Management requested additional examples from the workplace to better understand the concerns being raised. Union representatives described employee fears regarding professional hostility and concerns that participation in political organizations or endorsement activities could negatively affect workplace treatment or employment status.
The Employer expressed interest in learning more about the issue and indicated willingness to continue the discussion in future sessions.
Article 8 – Mandatory Subjects of BargainingWPEA proposed increasing the number of union representatives permitted during bargaining-related processes from three to five and sought language ensuring virtual participation opportunities would not be unreasonably denied.
Later in the session, management indicated willingness to tentatively agree to Article 8.
Article 10 – Labor Management Communication Committee (LMCC)The union proposed several changes related to LMCC operations, including:
- Increasing participation numbers to five representatives
- Guaranteeing virtual participation options
- Reducing agenda submission timelines from ten days to seven days
Employer Proposals and CounterproposalsArticle 2 – Dues DeductionManagement presented a proposal intended to clarify dues deduction procedures when employees move between employers, such as between legislative chambers.
The Employer explained that because separate employers and payroll/accounting systems are involved, employees transferring between employers would need to complete new authorization forms for dues deduction purposes.
Union representatives questioned how the process would apply in situations where employees are reassigned or transferred without voluntarily changing positions. Management responded that operationally, new onboarding and payroll processes would still require updated authorization documentation.
The discussion centered on balancing administrative requirements with continuity of union membership and dues deduction for affected employees.
Article 3 – Union Rights and Activities (Management Counter)Management presented a counterproposal addressing multiple operational and security concerns related to union activities.
Release Time CoordinationThe Employer proposed clarifying procedures for steward release time coordination through labor relations offices and supervision channels. Management stated that the proposal was intended to document and clarify existing practice rather than establish new standards.
Access and Meeting SpaceThe Employer proposed language clarifying that union access should not disrupt operations and that coordination with labor relations staff would occur for room reservations and meeting arrangements.
Management also proposed requiring union representatives visiting secure workspaces to be accompanied in restricted-access areas. WPEA expressed concern that management chaperoning union representatives could undermine confidential communication and organizing activities. Management responded that secure-space escort requirements already exist operationally and are necessary for security purposes.
The parties agreed further discussion and counterproposals would likely be needed on this issue.
Steward Access and NEOManagement proposed maintaining limitations on steward participation frequency and preserving group-based orientation structures. The Employer stated it was willing to provide release time for multiple orientation sessions annually but did not support unlimited steward access.
Article 18 – Term of AgreementManagement proposed routine updates to contract dates within the term-of-agreement article. The parties indicated general agreement on the proposed updates.
Afternoon Session and Continued DiscussionArticle 3 Counterproposal ReviewManagement presented a formal counterproposal to Article 3 with highlighted revisions reflecting discussions from earlier in the day.
The counterproposal included:
- Expanded release time availability for stewards attending representational meetings
- Clarification that employees may communicate without interference
- Use of office space or break rooms for meetings when available
- Continued requirement to notify labor relations staff regarding meetings
WPEA expressed interest in centralizing policy communication so future union representatives could easily access all relevant materials. Management acknowledged the concern but raised operational concerns about creating additional tracking and administrative obligations.
The parties also discussed flexibility for different work groups and acknowledged that some issues may require coordination with outside departments or agencies.
Management Rights and MeetingsManagement stated that while employee feedback regarding meetings is useful and has influenced operational practices, the Employer intends to retain management authority regarding scheduling and conducting meetings and is not willing to limit those rights through contract language.
Additional Tentative Agreements and Follow-UpManagement indicated willingness to tentatively agree to Article 8 and maintain current contract language for Article 4.
The parties also discussed additional counterproposals still being drafted and identified several areas requiring future discussion or clarification.
Toward the end of the session, the union indicated it did not intend to present additional proposals that day. Management offered flexibility regarding caucus scheduling at future bargaining sessions if additional preparation time is needed.
Overall and Next StepsThis bargaining session focused heavily on:
- Union rights and workplace access
- Communication and policy notification procedures
- Steward participation and release time
- Security and operational concerns regarding workplace access
- Non-discrimination protections related to political beliefs
- Mandatory bargaining subjects and LMCC operations
- Dues deduction procedures for employees transferring between employers
- Administrative coordination and tracking responsibilities
Moving forward, the parties are expected to:
- Continue refining Article 3 language and access provisions
- Further discuss steward access and secure workspace procedures
- Continue discussions regarding political belief protections and grievance rights
- Finalize tentative agreements on less disputed articles
- Exchange additional counterproposals and clarifications
- Continue operational discussions regarding policy notification and communication systems
Location |
|
Contact Us |