How are contract terms determined when union contracts contradict?
<p>I am a public employee in Washington state in Union A.  Part 1 of my problem: I wish to donate accrued sick leave to another employee in Union B.  I will have more than 100 hours in my bank and will donate the maximum I qualify to donate annually (25 hours).  My union (Union A) contract states:</p>
<p>&quot;6.4.  Sick leave hours.  An employee may donate a portion of his or her accrued sick leave to another leave eligible employee provided the donating employee’s sick leave balance will be 100 hours or more following the donation. The donation will occur following written approval from both the donating and receiving employee’s directors. An employee may not donate more than 25 hours of accrued sick leave in a calendar year.
6.5.  Calculation of Donated Vacation and Sick Leave.  All donated vacation and sick leave hours shall be converted to a dollar value base on the donor’s straight time hourly rate at the time of the donation.  The dollar value will then be divided by the receiving employee’s straight time hourly rate to determine the actual number of hours received.&quot;</p>
<p>Union B (the intended recipient's union) contract states:
&quot;Section 15 Sick Leave Donation:
B. Each calendar year, an Employee who has more than 100 hours of sick leave may donate a maximum of 24 hours, in eight-hour increments, to individuals employed by [my public employer].
C. Donated sick leave becomes the property of the recipient.  Donated sick leave may not be cashed out by the recipient upon retirement.  Sick leave may be donated only to an individual employed by [my public employer] who has exhausted or will have exhausted, within five calendar days following the receipt of the donation request in the Payroll Section, his/her sick leave.
D. A UNION Employee who donates leave to another UNION Employee does so on an hour-for-hour basis, meaning that one hour of donated leave becomes one hour of received leave, regardless of the pay rates of the donor or the recipient.
E.  If a UNION Employee donates leave to a [my public employer] employee who is not represented by the UNION, the recipient of the leave will be governed by the rules that normally apply to the recipient of the leave.  If a [my public employer] employee who is not represented by the UNION donates leave to a UNION Employee, then the UNION Employee's receipt of the leave is administered by the terms of Paragraph D.&quot;</p>
<p>I earn $50/hr.  I contend that I should be able to donate 25 hours to the recipient (who earns $25/hr) and the recipient should receive 50 hours of sick leave.  The recipient's payroll dept contends that the recipient can only receive 24 hours and that is all I can donate.</p>
<p>I contend that parts B &amp; C of Union B's contract doesn't apply to me, a non-union member of theirs.  (Part A addressed other types of leave donations).  I contend the only part of Union B's contract that applies in my situation is the second sentence in E (all punctuation is that which is in the contract). &quot;If a [my public employer] employee who is not represented by the UNION donates leave to a UNION Employee, then the UNION Employee's receipt of the leave is administered by the terms of Paragraph D.&quot;  Paragraph D makes no mention of the 24 hour maximum, and as such, the recipient should receive the full 25 hours I donated.  Also, although it (Union B contract) is specific to how the number of hours is calculated, my union contract (Union A) is also very specific.</p>
<p>I contend that as the donating person, my union contract takes precedence (as it was my intention to donate according to the contract I am employed by) over the recipient's union contract where there is a direct conflict.</p>
<p>What is the law on situations such as these?  Would a judge need to determine the solution or can the Human Resource department of the recipient make a binding ruling on this?  Should I consult my union? should I consult a labor attorney?  Any other suggestions on how to handle this so that the recipient will receive 50 hrs.</p>
<p>Part 2 of my problem:
The recipient is a member of Union B, but for the last 3 months has been in an officially sanctioned Special Duty Assignment (SDA) in Union C.  Union C &amp; my union Union A negotiate their labor agreements as a unit along with several other unions and both are under the MLA (Master Labor Agreement).  Because of the SDA in a union different that Union B, the recipient was not eligible for benefits specific to that union this past month.  Also, HR required the recipient to agree to and sign this statement among others. &quot;You may be required to pay dues to multiple unions depending on the arrangements between your current union and the union that represents the Special Duty position.&quot;  I contend that it is not legal in my state to require employees to pay dues to one, let alone multiple unions, due to the Supreme Court decision, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf</a>
Excerpt: “3. For these reasons, States and public-sector unions may no longer
extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees. The First
Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting
employees for a public-sector union ; employees must choose to sup-
port the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, nei-
ther an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector
union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt
be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively
consents to pay. Pp. 48–49”</p>
<p>Am I correct in asserting that the recipient should not be required to pay multiple union dues?  Should I consult my union? should I consult a labor attorney?</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The recipient's payroll dept contends that the recipient can only receive 24 hours and that is all I can donate.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The payroll department is misreading Union B's constraint of <em>maximum 24 hours</em>.</p>
<p>Clause B of that contract is in terms of donating hours, not of receiving. By contrast, clause C refers to received hours. The excerpt is clear on what applies to donating and what applies to receiving the hours, whence the payroll department is improperly mixing the scope of these two clauses.</p>
<p>Likewise, each one of 80 employees (whether members or nonmembers) could make a donation of one hour to the same Union B's member. There is nothing in Union B's contract that prevents its member from receiving a total of 80 hours.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>parts B &amp; C of Union B's contract doesn't apply to me, a non-union member of theirs.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree. Clause B is binding only to its members. This proposition can be premised on <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20110113080" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Chavez v. City of Albuquerque</em>, 630 F.3d 1300, 1309 (2011)</a> (&quot;<em>A sick day is usually unscheduled or unexpected, and is a burden because the employer must find last-minute coverage for the sick employee.</em>&quot;) insofar as it touches on a union's role in the risk or burden of labor shortage.</p>
<p>Requiring a donator to have &quot;<em>more than 100 hours of sick leave [available]</em>&quot; seemingly is devised to hedge against the union's inability to supply the amount of labor it agreed upon with the employer. Whereas a union understandably would take precautions to avoid breaching its agreement with the employer, there is no reason why that union should be concerned about other unions' ability to comply with theirs. Whether a nonmember's donation puts him below the level of 100 hours is not of Union B's concern. Accordingly, imposing on nonmembers the Union B's donation constraint is unreasonable.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I contend that as the donating person, my union contract takes precedence (as it was my intention to donate according to the contract I am employed by)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm assuming Union A's contract nowhere constrains to its members the rule about converting to dollar value. If your union contract does take precedence, it surely would be for other reasons and not for yours being the decision to donate or for your preference to do so under Union A's terms.</p>
<p>You might want to inquire of one or both unions about any agreement between them that is relevant to this issue, since the terms might indicate an element of discretion or a rationale that favors one approach over the other. Being that A's criterion is dollar-based and B's is hour-based, the process specifics of inter-union actual (i.e., historical) transfers might shed light on what approach to adopt in your matter.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Would a judge need to determine the solution or can the Human Resource department of the recipient make a binding ruling on this?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From the contracts involved it <em>might</em> be ascertained whether or not the recipient's HR department's unilateral decisions are binding.</p>
<p><a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.66.070" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RCW 49.66.070</a> requires exhaustion of <em>administrative remedies</em> for a set of unfair labor practices. Even if your matter can be exempted from that requirement on grounds of being a contract dispute, the agreement or contract itself might require the parties to undergo administrative procedures and/or alternative dispute resolution methods prior to filing suit.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Am I correct in asserting that the recipient should not be required to pay multiple union dues?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. The <em>Janus</em> decision, which you pointed out, is conclusive in that regard.</p>

contract-law unions