front page - search - community

WASA's problems include labor woes
(Published July 12, 2004)

By G. STEPHEN THURSTON
Staff Writer

The problems facing the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority don't end with lead in the drinking water or raw sewage in the Anacostia River. WASA has labor problems, too.

The employees represented by five unions at WASA have been working without contracts since last October. The two sides haven't even gotten to issues of money or working conditions. They can't even agree on how to bargain.

Last summer, WASA went to the D.C. Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) with a petition effectively asking PERB to force the five unions to act like one union when they negotiate wages and working conditions. Currently, the unions negotiate wages together, but they're trying to negotiate working conditions separately.

WASA does not want to bargain with any single union until PERB decides its case.

Not fair, said Local 631 of the American Federation of Government Employees (SFGE). And to force WASA back to the bargaining table regarding working conditions, Local 631 filed its own petition with PERB. Local 631 President Barbara Milton said WASA cannot choose whether to bargain with its unionized workers.

"That's certainly their opinion, and I guess that's why both of these [petitions] are at the PERB -- because we have differing opinions on this," said WASA Labor Relations Manager Steven Cook.

Cook is quick to point out that it was Local 631 that first pulled out of the "coalition agreement" between the five unions and WASA that was created in 1998. The pull-out created the current dilemma, Cook said.

With the unions legally bound together to negotiate their wages and benefits, the coalition agreement brought them together to bargain for their working conditions, too. The terms of the agreement allowed any of the unions or WASA to pull out with 180 days notice.

Local 631 pulled out in February 2003, becoming effective in August, in order to enter negotiations separately in the fall. The other four unions pulled out in July 2003 and have recently submitted their own petitions to PERB to call WASA to the bargaining table.

After the coalition dissolved officially, WASA filed its petition.

When the unions realized that WASA was not going to negotiate working conditions with any union individually, the unions presented a new form of the coalition agreement that allowed them to act as a group on some issues and to have autonomy on others.

"We retreated," said James Ivey, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 2091.

Cook said that WASA rejected the proposal because it was not strong enough to hold the coalition together and that it might break as soon as it was put together, he said. In another interview, he said the union was "just toying with me," regarding the proposal.

With no negotiations underway, Local 631 entered its petition with PERB last October when the union contracts expired. There have been hearings at PERB regarding the union's and WASA's petitions, but no decisions yet.

Although WASA's petition asks PERB to create one bargaining unit, PERB has several options -- to make one bargaining unit, to keep it at the current five or to do something altogether different.

"We will do whatever we're told to do by the PERB. We just want some clear direction," WASA's Cook said.

In a hearing July 1 regarding the union's petition, WASA was handed a setback when the hearing examiner decided she would rule on the union's petition without waiting for WASA's petition to be decided.

In off-the-record discussions during the hearing that were later summarized for the record, WASA representatives argued that any agreements the agency made singly with Local 631 in the near term could become items for a lawsuit later if PERB forces the unions to act as one. Hearing Examiner Arline Pacht rejected that idea.

Also, WASA officials say they do not want to start negotiations with one union and then have PERB tell them to re-start negotiations with the unions together. Pacht decided not to delay any decision on the union petition, saying that it was anyone's guess how long a decision on WASA's petition would take. It might take three years to organize the single bargaining unit and to have elections for positions on that unit, she said.

"In the meantime, conceivably, there could be bargaining," Pacht said. She added later that "it's too speculative and too far in the distance" to wait for a decision on WASA's petition.

By the end of September, Pacht said she plans to deliver her decision on the union's petition to PERB for their final decision on the matter. The next hearing on WASA's petition comes in August.

Reacting to the examiner's decision, Milton said, "I believe it was the appropriate thing to allow the union to put on their case. …We brought the case because we believe that we were supported by the law that says the agency has to bargain."

For his part, Cook said it was "not a major setback. We certainly put our position out there." He said the hearing examiner merely said that she was going to progress with the petition; she hadn't decided in favor of the unions. "She may decide in our favor," Cook said.

The unions represent about 550 employees and another 150 or more who pay fees but are not officially union members.

WASA has argued that negotiating with multiple unions would be, as Cook has said, "chaotic and inefficient." Plus, Cook argued in the July 1 hearing, the differences between compensation (wage and benefit) negotiations and non-compensation (working conditions) negotiations is a moot point.

"There's a cost associated with leave. There's a cost associated to benefits, to retirement," Cook said during hearing testimony. "We know what every benefit is going to cost."

From his point-of-view, there is no difference between wages and working conditions. He brought up an example of how negotiating the quality of uniforms — a working conditions issue — made WASA hold out on wage increases because of the costs.

"There are some things in the working conditions that have money value, so it's more efficient to be able to weigh those comp issues and non-comp issues," Cook said in an interview.

Milton testified that negotiators have been careful to separate wages and working conditions. Both Milton and James Ivey, president of AFSCME Local 2091, said that the inefficiency is merely a scare tactic.

"They're saying that [there are problems in efficiency] to try and meet the guidelines of how you can file for unit modification," Milton said.

According to the PERB web site, the group bringing the unit modification petition (in this case, that's WASA) may file the petition for a number of reasons including "to reflect a change in the identity or statutory authority of the employing agency."

WASA was created in 1996 by an act of the D.C. government, changing from the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Utility Administration. WASA became a semi-autonomous corporation at that time. Shortly after that, the unions and WASA entered into the coalition agreement to negotiate compensation and non-compensation as one unit.

"There's no law that says we have to be merged together for working conditions," Milton said. "They just want to get rid of the four unions."

Christopher Hawthorne, president of AFGE Local 872, also said he believes WASA officials are engaged in union-busting tactics.

"If they can deal with one person instead, and shut the mouths of five, then they'll be happy," he said.

Ivey said the issue isn't so much a decrease in productivity, it is management not willing to work with labor. WASA has a command and control style, Ivey said.

"What I see is that WASA manages, but how they manage is without labor involvement," Ivey said.

Milton said the view from her union is that they need to negotiate separately.

"I represent wastewater treatment operators. I represent a majority of the engineers," Milton said. "We're autonomous to ourselves."

Hawthorne agrees that the unions represent workers with distinctly different jobs.

"What wastewater does and water services does and what sewer services does are separate things," he said.

Hawthorne said the last contract is too broad, stipulating that no one can work in an "unsafe environment, but it does not take into consideration the differences between safety for one worker who might be digging ditches and another who is working at a desk.

As well as Local 631 at WASA, AFGE has Local 872, which represents meter reading and collection services workers, and Local 2553, which represents fresh water and sewer water pumping operators and facilities inspectors. The ASFCME local represents workers in buildings and grounds maintenance and warehouse operations, as well as sewer services workers and repair workers. National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) Local R3-06 represents workers in the office of the comptroller, including accounting assistants, accounting technicians and financial analysts.

However, the descriptions of the employee classifications show some overlap. Four of the unions represent administrative assistants or typists. NAGE, which primarily represents accounting assistants and analysts, also has "sludge compost operations specialist" and "sludge compost operations worker" listed in its job classifications.

But Hawthorne said what appears to be overlap often is not. For example, his union represents collection services, while the NAGE local works in accounting. His union members collect the money while NAGE helps spend it, he said.

Michelle Hunter, president of the NAGE local, said that the local unions were originally organized by division within the government and by being in different buildings. She said that no one in NAGE Local R3-06 or AFGE Local 631 answers to the same supervisor.