On October 27, 2004, after contentious negotiations, the Union and VTel signed an agreement at the bargaining table calling for modest wage increases over the life of the contract. The agreement also allowed for some large-scale increases in the employees’ contributions to their health-insurance premiums to help offset the increases that VTel would have otherwise had to absorb

After that agreement was signed at the bargaining table, VTel insisted that the Union sign a contract containing language that the Union never agreed to at the bargaining table – and indeed that the parties never even discussed at the table. The language would weaken the employees’ contractual protections regarding the healthcare plans that they were now paying a much higher rate for. The Union steadfastly refused to sign this modified contract and has insisted that VTel remove that language before the Union will sign the agreement.

Based on the Union’s refusal to sign the modified contract, VTel pursued legal action through the National Labor Relations Board. In defending its actions, the Union argued that the parties had reached an agreement but that the agreement did not include the language that VTel was trying to force upon the Union in the modified contract. An Administrative Law Judge of the NLRB determined that the Union did nothing wrong in refusing to sign the agreement and ordered the case against the Union dismissed. In reaching his decision, the Judge came to a conclusion that neither party advanced – i.e., that the parties failed to reach an agreement at the bargaining table because of the dispute over VTel’s modified language. In fact, the Union had strongly argued against such a finding, arguing instead that the agreement the parties’ signed at the bargaining table should be enforced.

VTel has now appealed the Judge’s decision to the NLRB in Washington, D.C. and has continued to argue that the Union must sign the modified contract that VTel has thrust upon the Union. However, with the next round of wage increases scheduled for October 19, VTel has now decided that it will hold the wage increases hostage unless the Union agrees to sign the modified contract that the Judge threw out. VTel has not indicated whether it will institute the scheduled increases to the employees’ share of the health insurance premiums, but VTel has taken this draconian step in the past with regard to employees in the Internet Department, so the Union must now prepare the employees for this eventuality.

Should VTel fail or refuse to pay the well-deserved and hard-fought wage increases that are owed to the employees on October 19, 2006, the Union will consider VTel to have completely repudiated the contract. Should that happen, the Union will no longer consider itself bound the contractual limitation on the Union’s right to strike and will take any and all legal and economic actions necessary to fight for the raises that VTel’s hard-working employees truly deserve.