Document 10aE5RyJnqXJMqaZ5O4ayx4nZ

MONSANTO COMPANY PLANT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND PLANT UNION COMMITTEE Texas City, Texas August 15, 1968 The Plant Management Committee and Plant Union Committee held its regular meeting on August 15, 1968. The meeting was called to order by E. H. Jones. Present were: UNION COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE W. M. Recknor, Chairman Tom Choate J. C. Goodson Y. M. Goodwin R. F. Hawkins D. L. Knape D. L. Long J. W. McCorry W. R. Pickett S. T. Tatum E. H. Jones, Chairman E. R. Albritton E. N. Brasfield R. E. Daly W. C. Fuller J. J. Hickey Gerald Osterman N. J. Ruiz G. T. Ryan Leonard Schwab N. F. Wood Absent from the Union Committee were: H. E. Bessire, D. E. Bozeman, W. B. Mitchell, Wesley Sam and Mitchell Williams. Guests were: Thomas C. Bear, Stanley Brand, H. L. Bundy, C. R. Faulkner, A. G. Goodson, Samuel E. Hebert, L. C. McCaghren, P. F. Murray, Don Rogers, George Sanders and H. H. Treaccar. OLD MINUTES DISCIPLINE UNION said in regard to the statements in the July 18, 1968 minutes they wished to state their position as being anytime an employee is talked to by supervision, and there is a chance discipline may be involved, the man should have the opportunity to have his steward present. COMPANY said they would note the Union's position in the minutes. Further stated it is the Company's practice to thoroughly investigate and consider all facts before any CBY 3104027 LAM023708 MAP 03977 Plant Management Committee Plant Union Committee Minutes 2 August 15, 1968 steps toward disciplinary actions are taken. If discipline is indicated and the employee requests his steward's presence, the steward is called. Other types of discussion and interviews, such as counseling interviews, which do not call for the presence of a steward, are frequently held with employees. 0_L_D _B_USJ_NESS SAFETY COMMITTEE UNION asked if the Company had the requested information on the make-up of the Plant Manager's Safety Committee. COMPANY said three members were elected from six nominees in operations, three were^elected from six nominees in the "mechanical crafts, " one was elected from three nominees in the combined groups of control lab, guards and the cafeteria, and one was elected from three nominees in the "non-mechanical crafts." MAINTENANCE FACILITIES UNION asked what decision had been reached on air-conditioning the shift kitchen and providing improved water coolers for several maintenance areas. COMPANY said no action would be taken on the shift kitchen and the water cooler problem was being taken care of. JURISDICTION UNION said the craft stewards were still interested in obtaining copies of the jurisdictional book printed by the Company. COMPANY said one copy had been given to the chairman of the Union Committee and supervisors had been instructed to make their.copies available to the stewards. X-RAYS UNION inquired as to how an employee would go about getting an x-ray during his annual physical. COMPANY said they would check this out. PAY CHECKS CBY 31CW028 UNION asked what provisions have been made for employees on the graveyard MAP 03978 LAM023709 Plant Management Committee Plant Union Committee Minutes 3 August 15, 1968 shift to pick up pay checks early. COMPANY said {he guards have been instructed to issue these checks to designated employee from each area, but all of the superintendents have not completed their plans on this subject. NEW BUSINESS .GRIEVANCE I 68-6-20 - TEMPORARY PROMOTION - DEPT. 41 - McCAGHREN COMPANY read grievance as follows: Statement of Employee's Grievance: On June 22, 1962, an agreement between chief operators and supervision as drawn up and signed by R. V. Butz dealing with overtime coverage by upgrading of operator. A copy of this agreement is in company files and at the Union Hall. Remedy Requested: Let the agreement rule as it was written. UNION said the Company's action of temporarily promoting an operator to chief is in violation of the current agreement, which provides in Article 8, a method for covering chief operator absences. Further stated that temporary promotions were not the past practice in Dept. 41 and, in fact, they had an agreement which specifically denied this action as a method of covering chief overtime. The only occasion in the past of a temporary promotion in Dept. 41 occurred when the chief operators requested this action because overtime was becoming an excessive burden. COMPANY said they always'had the right to temporarily promote an operator to chief whenever they deemed it necessary such as in the event of a long term illness. The agreement mentioned by the Union in their argument is a letter written by one supervisor to another setting forth various aspects of overtime coverage. It was not an agreement nor, in any event, was it meant to negate the Company's right to promote at its discretion. Further, we have covered long term absences in this manner throughout the plant on numerous occasions and would do it more often were it possible to more accurately predict the length of time employees would be off work. An answer to this grievance will be given to the Union. GRIEVANCE1 68-7-23 - PREMIUM PAY - BOILERMAKERS - BEAR COMPANY read grievance as follows: CBY 3104029 Statement of Employee's Grievance: We were not paid at the rate of one and one-half times the regular hourly rate for the evening shift of Monday, June 24, 1968. MAP 03979 LAM023710 Plant Mangement Committee Plant Union Committee Minutes 4 August IS, 1968 Remedy Requested: That our pay be adjusted from straight time to time and one-half for snift in question. UNION said the employees involved in this grievance actually received three shift changes, and the one given on June 18, 1968, cancelling their return to A-6 on June 24, 1968, constituted a short shift change. The Company's stand that this simply extended them a week on A-l 1, which they were already working, is a violation of the intent of Article 3, Section 1 of the Contract; since the cancellation had the effect of causing these employees to work the second shift which they were not scheduled to work .prior, to June 18, 1968. COMPANY pointed out that Article 3, Section 1 calls for premium pay for the first shift worked on a new schedule where the employee does not receive 7 days notice. In this instance the employees did not work A-6 but simply remained on A-l 1 in their original shift positions. This grievance was compared to a similar grievance filed in 1958 which was also denied because the employee never worked his new schedule. An answer to this grievance will be given the Union. LEAVE OF ABSENCE UNION stated one of its officials applied for a one day leave of absence and noted on the application that it called for a cancellation of his insurance benefits. COMPANY said this only applied to an extended leave and then the employee would have the option of continuing coverage by paying the premium. STAFFING UNION said they had received complaints from Pilot Plant employees that they are short-handed and men are being forced to work overtime who have letters requesting removal from the overtime list. COMPANY said they will check this situation out. Further stated that employees may be required to work a reasonable amount of overtime in spite of these letters. HOUSEKEEPING INSPECTION COMPANY said the annual housekeeping inspection will be held sometime during the last two weeks of October and would appreciate everyone's cooperation. ^ Aa 9/3/68 CBY 3104030 LAM023711 MAP 03980