Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, October 1, 1994 TAG: 9410030060
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GREG EDWARDS STAFF WRITER NOTE: below
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The proposed work schedule - approved by union members 241-239 - is similar to a weekend-work provision that caused the overwhelming defeat of a tentative contract just Wednesday.
Union negotiators now will go to the company to see if it will accept the new proposal or reopen negotiations to discuss it. Company officials were unavailable for comment Friday.
The company thought it had a new contract with the union when company negotiators and those for Local 1023 of the United Rubber Workers announced a tentative agreement on Sept. 20.
The union membership, however, turned down the contract Wednesday 581-149. That contract called for employees to work three days, be off three days, then work four and be off four. They would work 12-hour shifts.
The new union proposal still calls for 12-hour shifts but on a repeating schedule that would have employees work three days, be off two days, work two days, and be off three days.
After Wednesday's vote, Yokohama management said it was disappointed that union leaders had not recommended ratification of last week's tentative agreement. Richard Switzer, vice president for manufacturing, said the union leaders had agreed to make the recommendation and he was surprised when they didn't.
The company told union officials again Thursday it had to have a competitive seven-day schedule: either the schedule rejected by the union Wednesday or an earlier company proposal that would have made all employees hired since Jan. 1, 1984, eligible for a special weekend shift. The company said all of its competitors operate their key plants seven days a week.
"We informed the union that we did not have another proposal for them," Switzer said in a statement.
The union has been on strike since its three-year contract with Yokohama expired at midnight July 23. The issue of weekend work has been the major barrier keeping the company and union from reaching agreement on a new contract.
The first real sign that the union itself was not united on the weekend-work issue came after Wednesday's failed ratification vote, when older workers who opposed 12-hour days and weekend work exchanged words and scuffled with younger workers who already work weekends and saw the proposed contract as fair.
Friday's meeting was less contentious, but not everyone left happy.
The membership vote on a new union bargaining position came down to a choice between the "3-2-2'' schedule or the proposal to make 175 more union workers hired since 1984 eligible for special weekend shifts. About 150 workers hired since 1991 already were working weekends at the plant.
Linda Nelson of Roanoke was a supporter of the "3-2-2'' schedule with its 12-hour work days. "You have to go with what's fair for everybody," said Nelson, who has worked at the plant19 years and would not have had to work weekends with the defeated proposal.
Another employee, Henry Hale of Roanoke, said he was unhappy with the way things came out. Hale, who is active in civic affairs including Democratic politics, said he preferred a proposal that would have given him the same days off every week. "With this system, you're going to have different days off every week," he said.
Wayne Friend, president of Local 1023, said after Friday's union meeting that he was surprised by the outcome. Friend had opposed the seven-day schedule that was defeated in Wednesday's contract vote, although he helped negotiate the proposal.
He pointed out that if the company agrees to a contract with the version of the seven-day schedule voted for by the narrow union majority Friday, the document still will face another union ratification vote.
by CNB