Portal to portal settlements

[GMoney]

This is an urgent request for info from my fellow CPL33 brothers and sisters. FCI Greenville is currently attempting to resolve our portal to portal grievance. After a settlement was agreed to, the agency came back with a demand for a memo of understanding (MOU) that would lead to a new Institutional Supplement wich would create a schedule that they say will fix our portal problem. The agency's proposed MOU is an F'in joke. My question to you all is this, has any other recent settlement been conditional to an agreement on a MOU/Insitutional Supplement? I need your answers ASAP!

[GMoney]

BTW, if you are from USP Marion, you can have your old Exec Ass back! I'll pay for his move!

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Leavenworth's 2004 portal settlement came with no institutional supplement. And, according to the agency in an early 2007 monthly LMR, there were no MOUs between the agency and union. None!

Hopefully the boys at El Reno & Kevin will chime in on this quickly.

[GMoney]

Thanks Crosstimbers. We are meeting again tommorow. In the morning, we are planning on calling every local president that recently recieved a settlement. Most likely we will tell mgt. to stick it and reschedule an arbitration. We sincerely appreciate any assistance.

[Range Rover]

Is it just me, or is FCI Milan the only institution that LOST their portal case...

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Why do they want to negotiate a new Local Supplement just to fix a portal issue? I would think that a simple MOU would suffice.

Smells like fish stink to me.

[KBCraig]

Remember, any agreement, whether MOU or local supplement, is invalid if it violates the law. You can happily negotiate exactly what they want, but if it still leaves you with a portal issue, they're still on the hook to pay the employees.

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Good point. If their proposed MOU/Local Supplement will likely fix the portal issue, negotiate it, or they may be able to act unilaterally to fix it because they are trying to follow the law. If it doesn't, what are they really trying to get while using the portal issue as a smokescreen?

Smells like fish stink.

[bkmaxvrb]

Don't quote me on this as it may not be entirely accurate or may be a bit outdated. At CAA we currently (as far as I know) have not grieved any portal to portal issues, even though we have the same problems as everyone else.

The reason for this is... management is willing to pay us overtime for 5 hours per pay period as it was before the electronic screening. This was put on hold for more negotiation due to the new screening proceedures. Everyone wants to see what the issues are and what time is being added to our work schedules. We may end up getting more than the 5 hours. Again, as far as I know (and it may not be entirely accurate) this all may fall through and, at that time, we will proceed with a grievance.

I don't know if any of this is relevant or helpful but, that's whats going on here. As far as I know ( I like using that phrase).

[Crosstimbers Okie]

It's not relevant. Management does not pay us for portals until they are forced to. If they would pay us 15-30 minutes daily, that would fix it depending on the lay-out of the particular prison. When I worked for Oklahoma DOC they gave us 15 minutes. When I started with the feds they required us to be at work 30 minutes before the start of our shift and did not pay us. That only began to change in the mid 1990s as the union learned how to fix it.