Friday, December 11, 2015

Cirrus Aircraft may balk at proposed change to agreement

A development agreement that could bring 150 new jobs to Duluth encountered turbulence Thursday night when a couple of city council members proposed an amendment that could require Cirrus Aircraft to submit any future labor disputes to binding arbitration.

“It’s language that is intended to provide some guarantees for employees at Cirrus that for the life of this agreement, their collective bargaining rights will be respected,” said 2nd District Councilor Joel Sipress, one of the makers of the motion.

“Given the prevalence of denial of collective bargaining rights and violations of federal law in contemporary manufacturing, it seems prudent that when we subsidize a project, we should include some language that simply guarantees that ... employers, employees and labor organizations will actually follow federal law on matters pertaining to collective bargaining,” he said.


But Bill Burns, an attorney representing Cirrus, warned the council against trying to insert the new stipulations into the proposed development agreement with his client.


“These matters are subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board). And it is my own opinion that this is not an appropriate place for the city to tread. I don’t think anyone would say I’m anything other than an ongoing supporter of organized labor. If and when issues arise at Cirrus they should be dealt with appropriately, and they will be,” he said.


Burns advised councilors to proceed with caution.


“As a citizen of Duluth, I think it’s a bad idea for the community. And certainly from the standpoint of Cirrus, they’re not prepared to accept those as restrictions, and we feel they’re inappropriate,” he said.


But 3rd District City Councilor Sharla Gardner noted that the NLRB currently has a case backlog of about seven years and can’t be relied upon to defend the rights of workers.


“Unfortunately the board itself has been dominated by Bush and Reagan appointees who are not necessarily labor-friendly. So it has been virtually impossible for workers to get any kind of agreement or redress for grievances,” she said, explaining why she felt it is important for the city to step up its role.


While the city has routinely asked companies to sign project labor agreements, requiring them to use union labor during the construction of a project, David Montgomery, Duluth’s chief administrative officer, said the amendment is further-reaching than any other local development agreement he can recall.


Gardner suggested the city needs more than just project labor agreements.


“What always surprises me is that the building of the facility is done by union labor, and that’s great. But the employees who work inside the building for the business then are completely ignored, and that issue is never addressed,” she said.


“These are public monies that are being used, and so I do argue that it’s an appropriate amendment to bring up,” Gardner said.


Calling the amendment a potential “game-changer,” 4th District Councilor Howie Hanson asked Cirrus representatives whether they would possibly consent to the requirement.


Curtis Landherr, general counsel for Cirrus said: “I can’t speak for Cirrus, because I’m not a decision-maker. My senior management colleagues, our CEO and others make the decisions. But as a company lawyer, I would advise them that I don’t think we should agree to this. It was not part of the term sheet.”


Landherr also questioned whether Cirrus’ employees would welcome a city-imposed binding arbitration requirement, suggesting that in the event of a dispute they may prefer to seek redress by taking the company to court or filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


After Thursday’s meeting, Sipress said he and Gardner plan to tweak their amendment so it applies only to labor disputes subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB, an organization he called “broken.” He said this would still leave other remedies available to Cirrus employees.


For his part, 5th District Councilor Jay Fosle questioned the motivations of Sipress and Gardner.


“You know we’re trying to throw our weight around because we were promoted by labor to get on the council is what I’m seeing,” he said.


Original article can be found here: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com





Our View: Don’t muck up Cirrus Aircraft agreement 

  Maybe they were just looking to bluster, on the record, for labor interests and on behalf of a major political supporter.

And maybe nothing will come of the proposal from Duluth City Councilors Joel Sipress and Sharla Gardner to add a provision, at the last minute, to a development agreement with Cirrus, requiring the airplane manufacturer to submit future labor disputes to binding arbitration.


Maybe. All of Duluth certainly can hope so. Because, right now, Sipress’ and Gardner’s proposal, a clear moment of politically motivated government overreach, is threatening to scuttle a deal for the construction of a $10.5 million Cirrus finishing facility here in Duluth and the promise of 150 badly needed, good-paying, family-supporting manufacturing jobs.


Cirrus’ very future in Duluth, and the 600 or so jobs it already provides, may even be in jeopardy because of the proposal — a requirement that really isn’t up to local politicians or local government to attempt to dictate.


“These matters are subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board),” an attorney representing Cirrus, Bill Burns, said after Sipress and Gardner made their proposal at the City Council’s agenda-setting session on Thursday, according to News Tribune coverage. “It is my own opinion that this is not an appropriate place for the city to tread. I don’t think anyone would say I’m anything other than an ongoing supporter of organized labor. If and when issues arise at Cirrus they should be dealt with appropriately, and they will be. … As a citizen of Duluth, I think it’s a bad idea for the community. And certainly from the standpoint of Cirrus, they’re not prepared to accept those as restrictions, and we feel they’re inappropriate.”


Burns’ stern words can echo in the ears of city councilors Monday evening when they’re expected to consider and vote on the development agreement. The amendment from Sipress and Gardner can be left out. It can be rejected in Duluth just as a similar provision was rejected in St. Paul during the last legislative session.


Not only is Sipress’ and Gardner’s labor requirement inappropriate overreach, it’s completely unnecessary. Cirrus already has a grievance process in place to handle worker disputes. The company doesn’t need additional mediation or arbitration rules, its vice president of administration, Bill King, said in July.


It certainly doesn’t need city councilors or others in government trying to tell it how to run its business.


This development agreement is too important to muck up. It helps assure Cirrus’ growth and success in Duluth — as opposed to somewhere else.


Source:  http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion

No comments:

Post a Comment