News

Graphic Audio First Contract Negotiations: Report #3

  • Summary of 01.27.26 Events for Mobilizing Committee

    ● Today was our third bargaining session with RB. On the Union side, we had Nicolette, Donald, Laura (from GA), Tammy, Kisha, and Lisa (from CWA). Present on the Employer side was Anji Cornette, Justin Keith, Ed Longo, and Shana Jackson (from RB).

    ● We began the day in caucus to review the three counter-proposals we planned to pass across the table. They were as follows:
             ○ 15.1 - SENIORITY
             ○ 4.1 - NON-DISCRIMINATION
             ○ 10.1 - NO STRIKE NO LOCKOUT

    ● We presented those counter-proposals and Lisa answered any questions from the Employer team.

    ● Following our presentation, Justin presented twelve of the Employer’s counter proposals. Those counters were as follows:
              ○ 1.0 - RECOGNITION
              ○ 2.0 - UNION SECURITY AND UNION DUES
              ○ 3.0 - UNION ACTIVITIES AND REPRESENTATION
                          ■ While this counter-proposal was included in the presentation, it was not reviewed by the Employer. Instead Justin requested 
                              feeback on whether the union slack channel was working.
              ○ 5.0 - GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION
                          ■ These two proposals were originally separate as 5.0 and 6.0 respectively. The Employer’s counter-proposal combined the two into                             5.0.
              ○ 9.0 - PERSONNEL RECORDS
              ○ 11.0 - LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (LMC)
              ○ 13.0 - EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS
              ○ 14.0 - PAY PERIODS
              ○ 17.0 - SEVERABILITY
              ○ 22.0 - SAFETY AND HEALTH
              ○ 23.0 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

    ● While Lisa was able to gain some clarity on terminology used, as it related to the Employer’s intent behind some counter-proposal language, we were not presented the counter-proposals with changes. Lisa requested a caucus for time to review the counter-proposals alongside our initial proposal versions.

    ● Our goal for the second caucus was to understand the counter-proposal language and formulate questions where we required clarification behind the Employer's intent in presenting that language. This was because we needed more understanding before we could write a counter proposal. During this caucus, we were able to review COUNTER-PROPOSAL numbers 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 9.0.

    ● We returned to the table to present the Employer with our questions. During this session we also needed to clarify that union conversation would continue to take place outside of the Employer-designated union slack channel. It was misunderstood on the Employer-side that employees were initiating union conversation in the general slack channel. We were able to explain that union communication only happens in the random channel. We left the table with understanding on the first few counter proposals we reviewed in the second caucus.

    ● We entered the third caucus to review the remaining counter proposals to develop questions to any language we found confusing. We had no questions after reviewing counter proposals 11.0, 13.0, 14.0, and 17.0. As the final 15 minutes of the bargaining session approached, we chose to save the review of 22.0 and 23.0 for another bargaining prep session as the language for those were quite dense and we wanted to raise an RFI at our final table meet for the day.

    ● In the last table meet, Lisa stated there were no more questions for counters but we did have a problem with employee job status provided in a previous RFI. The title discrepancy was made clear to the Employer for them to review their data and update employee classifications. Lisa also requested that the updated information be provided in an RFI.

    ● We ended the day prepared to continue reviewing the Employer’s counter proposals in the next bargaining session caucus.