The Union's November 1998 proposal over shifts and details calls for Energy Techs to have shifts no more often than once every eight weeks. The Company has not countered this proposal. The JSC proposed the same number of ETDs per district as former Field Mechanics prior to reclass. We brought former Field Mechanics into negotiations to prove the business efficiencies gained by including leakage survey duties in the ETD Job Profile, thereby increasing the number of ETDs needed per district. The Union asserted that the Company is responsible for providing the Union with justification for their numbers since their numbers are inconsistent system-wide.
Some districts have only two ETDs while others have up to eight.
The Company rejected the Union's proposal for the number of ETDs per district flat-out, claiming determining staffing levels are within management's rights. It is the Union's position that the number of employees in any position affected by changes in job duties requires bargaining with the Union. The JSC will take appropriate action to reach remedy. Since many former Field Mechanics became either Construction Techs or Field Techs when reclass affected their jobs, the Union proposed allowing those workers to fill initial ETD openings. The Company agreed to the Union's proposal to fill initial openings in seniority order from the pool of former Field Mechanics at each district who are currently Energy Techs, Field Techs or Construction Techs.