Electric Co-op union contract up for vote by Local 1837

PLYMOUTH — Dick Rogers says this is the first time in his 7 years as business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1837 that he has recommended the rejection of a union contract, but that the management of the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative left him with no choice. Union membership was to vote on the matter overnight.

The union’s negotiating committee, by a unanimous vote, had recommended the rejection of management’s contract proposal for the 83 NHEC employees represented by the union. Because of the extended geographical area, the decision may not be known until later today.

Company spokesman Seth Wheeler said the Co-op, which serves more than 84,000 member-customers in 115 towns and cities in New Hampshire, has private contractors in place, should a strike occur, to cover the various parts of its service territory for outage and safety purposes, “so it would be seamless.”

“But we hope it doesn’t come to that,” he said.

Rogers said yesterday afternoon, “We think about our customers first. They’re our number one priority, no matter what. If those thunderstorms come through tonight, we’re not going to leave our customers in the lurch.”

The union contract that was negotiated five and a half years ago ended Monday night, but the union offered to extend the deadline by 24 hours to give the Co-op management time to consider the “reasonable solutions to their issues that we offered,” said Rogers.

At 10 a.m. Tuesday, he said, they received word that the management had rejected those proposals.

The issues

The union was considering a strike in 2012, Rogers said, after the company said its pension and 401(k) plans were too rich and dropped the pension factor from 1.7 to 1.2 and lowered the company match on 401(k) plans from 4.5 to 2.5 percent. At the last minute, the union agreed to the contract in order to avert a strike.

“The assumption by everybody in 2012 was that the same thing would be happening to the non-union side of the house,” Rogers said. “It was a financial situation for the company, and it was a tough one to swallow, but the guys did it, only to find out that the same thing didn’t happen to the management and non-union employees.”

Management’s pension plan was maintained at a higher rate, according to Rogers, and the company raised management’s 401(k) match by 2 percent.

“That’s what upset everybody the most,” Rogers said.

In negotiating the new contract, the union wanted to return to the pre-2012 terms for its members. The company offered to go back to a 1.7 percent plan but asked to increase full eligibility from age 62 to age 65, Rogers said.

That was a lot to ask of line workers, Rogers said.

“After 30 years of climbing poles, you get problems with your shoulders, your knees, you just break down,” Rogers said. “It’s tough work, and if you leave before age 65, you lose 20 percent, which could be $10,000 or $12,000 per year. But we were even willing to accept that.”

What they could not accept, he said, was the language that management included saying the company could change the pension and 401(k) plans at any time. The union’s proposal was that, if the plans were in financial trouble, the union could independently verify that, and, once verified, would accept a change.

“The company refused and wanted full control to just change the plans any time they wanted.  The union just can’t accept those terms and give up our bargaining rights on retirement plans,” he said.

Wheeler said he could not get into the details of the contract.

“We have worked diligently to reach agreement with the IBEW and will continue to strive to reach a new agreement,” he said.

“It should be noted that none of the proposals put forth by the company would result in a loss of pay or existing benefits for our union employees,” he said. “In fact, the company has offered a substantial increase in benefits. We are doing our best to balance the requests of the union with our members’ ability to pay for them, particularly during a time when the cooperative has seen large increases in the cost of wholesale power and transmission, as well as municipal property taxes.”