Council 31 AFSCME January 14,2016 EE Mr. John Terranova ees Director's Office, Labor Relations commad Department of Central Management Services ——— 401 South Spring Street ee Stratton Building, Room 501, Springfield, IL 62706-4100 fete eed Dear Mr. Terranova: ae 1am writing to clarify the Employer's position regarding the status of contract Gnten negotiations with AFSCME Council 31. Sin tees When the parties met on the third day of last week’s negotiating session~-shortly after ker 1.00 p.m. on Friday—the Union presented three separate proposals to the employer eanrvouea which: 1) Modified our proposal on wages, agreeing to the framework of your ye proposal for a bonus (stipend) rather than a pay increase in the first year; 2) Modified Se rr our health insurance proposal to increase the annual employee deductible; 3) ever tow Withdrew a portion of our proposal re IDOC, while urging you to accept the portion Sto that provides for a joint labor-management committee to seek to improve ae rehabilitation opportunities for inmates in IDOC. Danateney fester With each of these proposals the Union had modified its previous position at the eee bargaining table. ath oreo an Instead of giving these compromise proposals any consideration, you immediately ae began reading from a previously prepared statement in which you alleged that the 7 parties were at impasse. Until that moment, you had never indicated that you believed aa the parties were at, or even near, impasse on any proposals. ftp cen le Tr You then presented the Union with a previously prepared one-page document entitled Tot tne “Management Last, Best, and Final Offer,” and again asserted that the parties were at tee rt impasse. hone In response we made clear that the Union does not believe the parties are even ne remotely close to an impasse. Until the Employer’s statements on Friday afternoon, oe neither party had stated that they had no room to move on any outstanding proposal, nae, and the Union has continued to offer compromise proposals. We have requested information from you in a number of areas, and we remain limited in our ability to bargain over some issues until we receive the information we have requested. There oma = ‘American Federation of State, County and Municipal Errployees, Council 31 TO. 212) 641-4000 FAX G12) 861.0979 WER www atemeSI org 205 North Miehian Avenue, Sate 2100 Chiag, in O60)are other areas where we have questions and/or need further discussion at the bargaining table prior to making any new proposals. Given your declaration of impasse on Friday—witnessed by the entire AFSCME Bargaining Team—and the presentation of your last, best and final offer, we were extremely surprised to read statements in the press over the following days in which the governor's office denied that the administration had declared it was at impasse ‘The governor was personally quoted as saying “... we have not declared impasse at all.” And in a letter to his members, House Leader Jim Durkin stated that “Based on personal discussions with the Governor's Office ... an impasse was NOT declared by the Governor's Office.” The governor also told reporters regarding the AFSCME negotiations: “They've rejected every proposal we've made, adamantly. They’ve made no compromise proposals of their own.” As you know well, we have most definitely not “rejected every proposal” that you've made, In fact we've made numerous compromise proposals that attempt to address issues that you've raised. ‘As you're also well aware, we have had similar situations arise over these months of bargaining in which you have made proposals or statements at the bargaining table, which the governor's office then subsequently (sometimes within a matter of hours) revises, adds to, or denies in the press or other forums. When we have questioned you about the discrepancy, in each of those instances you have insisted that what the governor's office say’ in the press is irrelevant to the bargaining process and should not be given any consideration by the Union—that only ‘What is said across the bargaining table can be considered to represent the Administration's position—and that the employer’s bargaining team is in no way bound to ensure that its positions are consistent with statements made by the governor's office away from the table. Since there are no further bargaining dates scheduled, making it impossible to clarify your position in that venue, I write now to do so: Is the governor’s statement in the press that his administration has “not declared impasse at all” the position of the Administration in these negotiations? I will state again for the record that AFSCME does not believe that the parties are at impasse. We believe further progress can be made. Certainly we are prepared to work to do so and we would hope that you are as well,If the Employer is indeed to refusing to continue to bargain, that would be a viol of the Tolling Agreement between the parties. That Agreement requires the parties “to continue meeting and negotiating in good faith for a successor collective bargaining agreement.” That obligation remains in effect until there is mutual agreement that impasse exists or until the matter has been adjudicated. Neither of these conditions has occurred, If you are no longer holding to the position that these negotiations are at impasse, then the parties should return to the bargaining table with all due dispatch. We had previously proposed scheduling a bargaining session on any days during the last two weeks of January. You responded that your team is unavailable for that entire period. We are therefore offering to meet any time during the first week of February. Please let us know as soon as possible whether you are available to meet on those days—or what subsequent days you may be available--so that we can work on securing appropriate meeting space. Sincerely, Oriel hewmen Michael Newman Deputy Director