Union Rift Leaves More than 30 Facing Possible Layoffs

CREST HAVEN – Layoff is a word no one wants to hear; but 30-35 Cape May County government employees could face that prospect early next year. Additionally, eight-day furloughs for each AFSCME member are possible if the union representing 750 county workers will not modify its present contract.
A union rift, between the local representing 750 county workers and the higher South Jersey Council 71, may result in taking the matter before the international union in Washington, D.C.
“We will postpone the Nov. 29 vote and definitely will be pursuing this through the international council in Washington, D.C.,” said Joseph Gariffo, Local 3596 president.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 3596, represents those employees and had a tentative, one-year contract extension with concessions that could spare those jobs. It would accept 2.5 percent raises on July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2012, if the contract were extended one year.
For its part, the county would agree to no layoffs or furloughs of any employees covered in the extended agreement. The exception would be unfunded grant positions.
All health benefit co-payments would continue at the present amount unless an increase was mandated by state statute.
Gariffo and the local’s executive board notified rank-and-file members that a secret, paper-ballot election would be held Nov. 29 from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Historic Courthouse.
Then something unprecedented in local union history transpired on Nov. 18 that put pact in limbo. According to Gariffo, an informational meeting was announced to consider the proposal. That meeting drew 130 members.
Unbeknown to Gariffo or the executive board, dissidents had alerted Council 71 Executive Director Mattie Harrell of the meeting. The council, which oversees AFSCME locals throughout South Jersey, is based in Williamstown.
After the local’s meeting was open for about 20 minutes, Harrell and five other council members and an attorney entered the room.
After a short time, Harrell held a “quorum vote” with 130 members present. By show of hands, there was 90-40 in favor of standing fast with the present three-year contract. It gives workers 5 percent raises in each of the contract years to those earning under $50,000, and smaller raises to those earning over that.
It also may result in layoffs.
Contacted for comment on Wed., Nov. 24, Harrell had no immediate response. She said she would look into the matter further before addressing the situation.
“We objected to the quorum vote,” said Gariffo. “We, Local 3596, objected to Council 71 coming to our meeting and taking over. By our constitution and by-laws they are not allowed to do that.
“We contend the vote that was taken was illegal. We have a paper ballot set for Nov. 29,” Gariffo continued.
“She (Harrell) said there was not enough notice, yet all the members knew, from mid-October, they were informed with plenty of time. There is a 15-day notice period,” Gariffo said.
“Our objection was why should a council come to a local like ours?” he said. “We have been independent, and handled all our grievances, only a few we didn’t handle went to the Public Employees Relations Commission.
“We got violated. The members felt violated,” said Gariffo, a seven-year local president who described himself as “union all my life.”
“We had another 700 who did not have a chance to vote. How could you call that unionism?” Gariffo asked. “I have never seen anything like this happen.”
In a letter from union member Jack McBride to Harrell, made available to the Herald, he wrote of his surprise at her, “upstaging the meeting, and grandstanding with members of your council executive board and an attorney. You were an embarrassment to watch as you tried to portray yourself as some kind of victim and to hear your complaints about perceived slights from the local’s executive board.”
McBride termed Harrell’s “insinuation that the local board has been ignoring you is preposterous.” He wrote that the board has a “good reputation of returning telephone calls.”
By the show of hands quorum vote, McBride said Harrell had “disenfranchised the full membership of its right to vote, as well as a secret ballot on this important decision.”
County Administrator Stephen O’Connor said the county is “looking to save over $700,000 if the union agrees to split the increase (2.5 percent instead of 5 percent) and extend the contract for one year.”
That is, if the present AFSCME contract with Local 3596, agreed to by all parties before the economy bottomed out, cannot be modified, as the local hoped to do.
However, the 2.5 percent salary hikes in each of the next two years, and the one-year contract extension could mitigate those layoffs, since it would be part of an agreement, said O’Connor.
“Once I know if the plan has been rejected, we will proceed with layoff plans,” said O’Connor.
Three weeks ago, the state Public Employees Relations Commission made the decision that furloughs are mandatory negotiable.
“If the union is unwilling to avoid layoffs by doing furloughs, then layoffs are the only option the county has,” said O’Connor.
He said such details are contained within the “tool kit” to trim taxes that the Legislature is likely to enact by the end of December.
“If the union rejects the proposal, which the county believes is fair and reasonable under these economic conditions then the county will proceed. If legislation is not adopted to not allow furloughs, a layoff plan of 30-35 employees would happen, and a 45-day notice would be issued,” said O’Connor.
He said that could bring the layoffs, should they take effect, in March or April.
“We were doing everything to prevent it,” he said. “The county is not moving forward until it gets a formal rejection.”
O’Connor said one of his department heads wrote him that a union member, who attended the Nov. 18 “did not vote, because he was fearful.”
“Other people told me it was totally intimidating,” said O’Connor.
Contact Campbell at (609) 886-8600 Ext 28 or at: al.c@cmcherald.com