by Nat Rudarakanchana February 21, 2013 vtdigger.org The Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA) and the state clashed Thursday over whether some state employees providing essential services in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene are eligible for twice their ordinary pay.Under Article 44 of the collective bargaining contract between the state and the union, employees can receive both their ordinary salary and additional hourly pay if they work during an ‘ emergency closing’ of state offices.VSEA Associate General Counsel Abigail Winters. VTD/Josh LarkinVSEA attorney Abigail Winters argued before the Vermont Labor Relations Board that since the Waterbury state office complex closed after Irene, about 60 state employees, mostly from the former state hospital and the Department for Children and Families (DCF), should receive both ordinary and emergency pay ‘ essentially doubling their normal pay rate ‘ until they’ d been officially reassigned to new workplaces.The state’ s human resources chief, Kate Duffy, said that this period of transition lasted up to three or four months for some employees.Winters said that other Waterbury-based state employees lawfully received pay immediately after Irene, even though they stayed at home and were unable to work for lack of an office. So those who cared for state hospital patients as they moved to other facilities, or continued to administer state welfare benefits to needy families, should receive extra pay for their extra work, she said.‘ We’ re here because of a double standard,’ said Winters in her opening statement at the grievance hearing. ‘ When the employer required these employees to work, they did, even while their colleagues were paid to stay home.’‘ Yet when it came time for the employer to fulfill its obligation to pay these employees, in accordance with the contract, it unilaterally asserted a legal theory granting to itself unfettered discretion to abide by, or ignore, the emergency closure pay provision,’ she continued.‘ Nobody said recovering from the destruction of Irene was going to be easy or cheap. But the rule of law must be upheld,’ she said, accusing the state of making a ‘ mockery’ of the state-union contract.But Assistant Attorney General Bill Reynolds defended the state in equally strong language, arguing that an ‘ emergency closure’ only lasted for one day in August 2011, and that state workers afterwards were back to work as usual, even if they’ d moved to other workplaces.‘ Thankfully for the taxpayers of this state, the union’ s theory is fundamentally flawed in several respects,’ said Reynolds. Later he added: ‘ Under VSEA’ s theory, the state remains in an emergency closing today, and only a letter [of relocation] to an employee can end the emergency closing and forestall double pay liability.’He pointed out that under the contract, the state has sole discretion to decide when, if, and to what extent an emergency closure has been declared. The union disputes this, saying that if an office is in fact closed due to an emergency, emergency provisos apply.Neither side disputes that the Waterbury complex has been closed since Irene’ s flooding, with the crux of the debate turning on the duration of any alleged ‘ emergency closing’ after the storm.‘ There was no emergency in Waterbury after the storm left, on Sunday evening. ‘¦ The situation resulted in very damaged buildings, but there was no emergency on Tuesday, following the storm,’ Reynolds told the labor board.Some state employees named in the grievance testified before the board on Thursday, describing the demanding work they did post-Irene. Michelle Dunne, a nurse at the former state hospital, told VTDigger that she didn’ t work with the intent to receive double pay, only hearing about the provision after a colleague informed her weeks later.Asked why she deserved double pay, Dunne replied: ‘ Cause we were in a state of emergency: We were deployed to all different situations, our patients were moved every which way. ‘¦ We were not officially at the Waterbury complex. That’ s why I feel we should be able to have the double compensation.’Although 63 employees are named in the grievance filed against the state, Winters believes there could be dozens more who were in similar situations. The state hasn’ t yet provided the VSEA with a full list of employees who could be eligible for extra pay under the grievance.Work goes on at the Waterbury State Office Complex. VTD/Josh LarkinThe 63 employees are from the pool of about 1,200 employees formerly working from the Waterbury complex. Of those, this case is relevant to those called upon to provide critical state services which couldn’ t be interrupted, even days after the storm.Duffy, who oversees the Department of Human Resources, said that the fact that only 63 employees are arguing with the state shows that ‘ most employees know how much we value what they’ ve done during Irene.’‘ There were AOT [Agency of Transportation] employees who were out there working nonstop from the minute Irene hit,’ Duffy said. ‘ They’ re not asking for double pay. I’ m not sure that the person who was assigned as of Tuesday [the day after the storm], to sit in a different office, and work a normal shift, should be paid more than some person in the Department of Public Safety or AOT, who was out, in it, working huge shifts, seeing the devastation.’Neither Duffy nor Winters know how much the state would pay these employees if the labor board rules against the state. But Winters said because the state delayed dealing with this case for almost two years, employees could receive significant interest on top of back pay allegedly owed. Past attempts to settle the matter failed, said Winters.It could be months before the labor relations board reaches a decision on whether the state violated contract terms.Former state senator and freshman VSEA lobbyist Vince Illuzzi lamented the dispute between the state and its workers. ‘ I hate to see the Shumlin administration fighting with its workforce. I’ m hoping that the parties re-evaluate their positions, that the Shumlin administration re-evaluates its position following the first day of testimony, to open a door to get the matter resolved,’ he said.Winters described the grievance as one of the most important the union has handled in recent years, adding: ‘ Any time the state acts like it’ s above the law, citizens should be worried.’But Duffy sees it differently, saying, ‘ What’ s fair is for us to abide by our contract, which I believe we’ re doing.’The union clearly disagrees, as Thursday’ s hearing made evident.
read more