ULP on SIP Conclusion:
While we found that the District had an obligation to bargain over some of the changes related to the implementation of the SIP, ATU failed to make a timely demand to bargain or to diligently pursue bargaining over those changes. As a result, the District did not make a unilateral change in violation of ORS 243.672(1) (e). In addition, since the District then had no obligation to bargain, it also did not bargain in bad faith under ORS 243.672(1) (e). Finally, since ATU failed to make a timely bargaining demand under ORS 243.698(3), the District did not fail to comply with the fargaining or interest arbitration provisions of ORS 243.698 in violation of ORS 243.672(1) (f). Therefore, we will dismiss the complaint.
We need to know why did ATU fail to make a timely demand to bargain. Who failed us here? Is this going to be the same outcome with our ULP about our contract?
No comments:
Post a Comment