Google Custom Search

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

SPEEA Utah Q and A

2/19/08

SPEEA hosted an ‘open-house’ style meeting Feb. 19 at the Roy Library. Many good questions and comments were shared. This Q/A is a follow up of that meeting for those interested who were not able to attend.
Q: Did the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) require a new contract?

A: The NLRB ruled that the current contract did not serve as a bar to an election. The election re-affirmed that SPEEA represents ALL Boeing engineers in Weber and Davis counties. The NLRB did state, in the decision, that Boeing could have withdrawn recognition in 1999, but did not state anything requiring a new contract. In fact, the NLRB is in place to encourage labor/management cooperation – which includes leaving bargaining to the parties.

The bottom line: SPEEA contends the contract does cover engineering employees and has filed a grievance (#08-052) in regard to this. Management stated they wish to bargain a new agreement.
Q: Do I have to join SPEEA to have a vote in the current contract or a new one?
A: Yes, SPEEA bylaws and other governing documents require membership, as opposed to simple representation, in order to vote on any contract offers.
Q: What does representation include prior to a decision on the contract?
A: SPEEA has been chosen as the representative of the engineers. We stand ready to enforce the contract we believe covers engineering employees. The process will be to file a grievance for any violations of the agreement REGARDLESS of SPEEA membership.  We have already begun receiving bargaining unit data to ensure appropriate treatment of the Utah engineers.
Q: What is the timeline for resolution of the issue of contract coverage, and what happens in the meantime?

A: While we do not have an exact timeline, we can talk in general terms and timeframes.  SPEEA has filed a grievance regarding Boeing’s reluctance to move the newly recognized represented employees under the current contract. It is likely that, absent management’s agreement to settle this matter, resolution of this will require at least several months. The next steps will be dependent upon the outcome of this grievance.

In the meantime, we continue to monitor for contractual compliance for all 102 engineers. This includes participation in the selective salary exercise (effective date of 2/29, showing up on the 3/20 paycheck), participation in the retention exercise and other important guarantees in the contact. Regarding medical plans, we filed a grievance on behalf of the 38 engineers who have been represented all along as they should have – per the contract (reference Article 16.2(b)(2) and (3) – had a choice between IHC and the Traditional Medical Plan. 

Even if management continues to deny recognized employees contract coverage and insist that there is no current agreement, they would be obligated by that position to continue the existing working conditions until such time as they agree to, or are compelled to, recognize coverage under a contract. This still means a selective salary adjustment with an effective date of 2/29/08. Furthermore, given that management stated that formally not-recognized employees received a greater percentage increase in their salaries as compared to SPEEA represented employees, we would expect the newly recognized employees to receive at least the 4% mandated in the current contract.
Q: Does inclusion in the larger contract make sense for Utah given that we’re only military?
A: Utah engineers have a 45-year history of being part of the larger agreement. And, there is an even longer history of success reliant upon cooperation of BCA,IDS, SSG, and EO&T. Programs that speak to this point include Air Force One, Poseidon, testing of military and commercial A/C at EAFB/Palmdale, AWACS, Wedgetail, Peace Eagle, E-10 and other surveillance aircraft, C-40 (737) and C-32 (757) Military Transports, TACAMO (707 based Naval support), ABL and Supply Chain Services just to name a few. Continued cooperation is required for the success of the 767 Tanker. In fact, Boeing recently took out an ad proclaiming this and included both SPEEA and the IAM. The 787 is reliant upon the military side of Boeing for a variety of reasons including the use of Boeing Wichita (100% IDS) and the military facility in San Antonio, Texas. Another example is the fact that Pat Shanahan and others recently moved from IDS to BCA to help out on the 787.  Currently, more than 30% of the SPEEA engineers at Boeing work for IDS.
Q:  Why does management want to split Utah engineers out of the current agreement?
A: Boeing’s actions indicate this is part of a corporate strategy to rid Boeing of all unions, including SPEEA. It appears that Boeing is attacking SPEEA one unit at a time, starting with Utah and the engineers and technical workers at EAFB and Palmdale in California.
Q:  How much money has Boeing spent to fight representation in Utah?
A:  The Department of Labor requires Boeing disclose this information. This is part of 29 CFR 405.2 whereby Boeing is required to report expenses paid to the anti-union attorney involved in the campaign in a timely manner. As a result we have an open inquiry with the DOL to determine if Boeing violated the law by not disclosing this expense.
Q: Why does SPEEA care about 102 engineers especially in a right-to-work state?
A: The leaders of SPEEA are engineers and technical workers at Boeing, Triumph, BAE and Spirit AeroSpace. They recognize size does matter when negotiating contracts with the world’s leading aerospace manufacturer and its partners and suppliers. The divide-and-conquer strategy serves only to weaken the bargaining power of all those represented by SPEEA. We will fight vigorously to preserve our strength. Don’t discount the power you have through your contributions to the health and profitability of Boeing.
Q: Has SPEEA done anything so far for the newly represented employees?
A: SPEEA filed a grievance demanding coverage in the existing contract. SPEEA also began investigating management practices associated with the use of non-industrial sick leave as governed by Article 6.3(a) of the contract and NOT by the policy for non-union employees. We have had to remind management in Utah of this fact before. SPEEA will also monitor the upcoming salary exercise (raises to be distributed the end of February) for compliance with the contract in terms of minimum increases and pool expenditures.
Q: Can SPEEA and Boeing return to a more collaborative relationship?
A: Yes, in the more than 60 years that SPEEA has represented engineers at Boeing, the majority of our interactions have been in a data rich, collaborative and open environment.  It is our sincere hope that we can return to that environment that has served both Boeing shareholders and employees well.