'371' Gets Right To Sue ACS On Reorganizing

By MEREDITH KOLODNER

Local 371 of District Council 37 has been authorized by the Board of Collective Bargaining to seek a court order to halt a planned reorganization by the Administration of Children's Services that would cost 650 Caseworkers their jobs.

FAYE MOORE: Pleased by ruling.

The 5-2 decision also found "reasonable cause" to conclude that the city had acted improperly in its failure to bargain over the plan's impact on union jobs. Union officials said they would petition the State Supreme Court for an injunction this week.

Union: 'Fair Ruling'

"We thought it was a fair ruling," said Local 371 Vice President Faye Moore. "We were mostly distressed by the city's refusal to bargain with us. We've always been willing to talk with the city to reach goals that work for everyone involved."

ACS officials declined to comment. The BCB's city-appointed members dissented from the opinion.

ACS officials announced its foster care services restructuring plan in mid-March, angering union leaders by providing details to the news media before notifying the union.

A raucous City Council hearing on March 29 forced ACS Commissioner John B. Mattingly to acknowledge mistakes in how the plan was announced. Some City Council Members said the agency's new job requirements for the 500 positions set to replace the 650 Caseworkers were racially discriminatory.

Early Layoffs on Hold

The next day the agency backed off of its initial wave of 97 layoffs slated for this month, but there was no indication that it was planning to revise the overall restructuring plan. ACS officials told the union that they thought all of the 650 Caseworkers would be able to find other jobs at ACS or other city agencies at comparable salaries.

The union filed four improper practice charges with the Office of Collective Bargaining on March 30, arguing that the city had an obligation to negotiate with the union before implementing the re-organization plan because of the impact on its members.

The city asserted that the planned changes "are clearly management rights that do not require bargaining." City lawyers contended that ACS had fulfilled its obligation by notifying the union of its plans before carrying them out. They further argued that the case should be deferred to arbitration because the issue was one of contract interpretation.

Keys to Decision

But OCB found in favor of the union on two central issues. One was the "practical impact - the elimination of up to 650 bargaining unit positions and potential resultant layoffs." The Board also found the union's case had merit because it appeared that "immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage to the rights of the employees" would result from the restructuring.

If the court grants the injunction, the ruling in essence will force the city to sit down at the bargaining table with the union before going ahead with its plan.

"Sometimes this process works," said Ms. Moore, "and as long as it works to benefit people providing the services and the people receiving the services, then the union feels like we did the right thing."