Mr. Larson,

Given the actions by the Department of Corrections August 16, 2007 regarding shift exchanges, I am left with a single question and only two possible answers.  The question is whether you lied to the Unit 8 Bargaining Team and the Mediator during this last round of negotiations?  I accept that one of the two answers could be yes, which would have a catastrophic affect on the State's relationship with AFSCME, our Membership, future rounds of bargaining and all labor relations.  The other answer would be that the Department of Corrections is acting alone and creating the perception that you lied.

Regardless, what should have been good-faith bargaining has turned into no-faith bargaining.  As a team, you and the Department of Corrections attempted to advance several proposals regarding shift exchanges, including a letter with the intent to re-interpret the existing language.  We rejected your proposals and proposed to arbitrate over whether you have the right to re-interpret the language out side of bargaining.  You withdrew your letter the same day it was issued and, eventually, your proposals as well.  Your position on this issue was that the Department of Corrections would continue to resolve issues regarding shift exchanges on a case-by-case basis.  At that time, I made several inquires to assure that this meant an individual basis and not the entire bargaining unit.  It was your assurance that this would be resolved on an individual basis that allowed us to bring closure to negotiations and recommend the tentative agreement for ratification.

Even before voting had been completed, we began to experience problems at one facility.  You assured me it was not supported by you and that you would look into the matter.  Within two days of the votes being counted, we received the first round of denied requests for shift exchanges from that same facility, and you then suggested that we should allow the grievance process to work as it was an individual case.  By that time it was clear you were now supporting the Department of Corrections position as you pointed out an Arbitration Award that you believe supported their case.  Given this information we attempted to clarify the dispute with the Department of Corrections through the Assistant to the Commissioner, Erik Skon.  Mr. Skon made it perfectly clear that this was a Departmental directive and that all facilities would be conforming to a single interpretation.  This now changed the scope of the issue and a grievance was filed on behalf of all of Unit 8.  On August 16, the Department of Corrections issued a memo through each of their Wardens at every facility which,  although it has been re-written, contains the same content as the document you attempted to advance during bargaining.

So I must ask, which is it?  Did you lie to us during bargaining or is the Department of Corrections acting on their own?  We have continued to hear from the Department of Corrections that they wanted to work through this, but we refused.  The actual truth in the matter is that their request was considered by our bargaining delegation and was rejected and then withdrawn by you.  They continue to claim that they value the right to shift exchanges yet continue to force their re-interpretation of existing language outside of bargaining.  The choices made and actions taken by the Department of Corrections run contrary to their words and the tenants of good-faith bargaining.  Your actions in response will provide the answer to my question and define the history and future of our relationship.

Paul, you could end this right here and right now.  The grievances have been filed and we can get the ruling regarding an employer's right to re-interpret existing language with precedent setting interpretive guidelines outside of bargaining.  We can get a ruling on whether or not an Arbitrator will award the employer something which they failed to secure through negotiations.  We can do this without all of this added posturing and change implemented by the Department of Corrections.  The grievance procedure provides us an appropriate venue to resolve our differences.  The current course taken by the Department of Corrections has a broad impact on the members and is destructive on every level.

Return the interpretation and application of the shift exchange language in the AFSCME Unit 8 - State of Minnesota collective agreement to that which existed prior to August 1, 2007.  Then we will put our dispute before an Arbitrator and allow the process to work.

I request a response from you on this matter as it will not only answer my question, but define our relationship.

Sid Helseth