An arbitrator recently ruled in favor of the SIU Government Services Division in a case involving the union’s efforts to help ensure that CIVMARS aren’t required to stay in substandard hotels selected by the U.S. Military Sealift Command (MSC). (A PDF copy of the full decision is available by clicking HERE.)The hotel involved in the arbitration is the Days Inn Military Circle on Chambers Street in Norfolk, Va. A hearing had taken place Feb. 15-16 at the SIU hall in Norfolk, where representatives from the SIU and MSC stated their respective cases.
On June 28, Arbitrator Mark H. Grunewald issued a decision calling for monetary compensation for CIVMARS required to stay in the hotel between Oct. 6, 2006 and Jan. 17, 2007. Although the union maintained that the general conditions at the hotel were substandard from the moment CIVMARS were assigned in October 2005, the arbitrator found that it was not within his power to determine whether the MSC could terminate the hotel contract award prior to October 6, 2007.
Grunewald agreed with the union that “$40 per day is the proper back pay remedy to the CIVMARS who stayed in the contract hotel during the extension period” (Oct. 6, 2006-Jan. 17, 2006).
That amount of money is stipulated in the Civilian Marine Personnel Instructions (CMPI) as the reimbursement rate for “cash in lieu of quarters.”
At the outset of the hotel assignment, the union charged that the Days Inn Military Circle posed substantial health and safety risks to the hundreds of civil service mariners who stayed there. Grunewald noted that MSC’s inspectors found safety and health problems with the facility early on and the hotel was selected even though it was only “marginally” qualified. Despite MSC’s understanding of these problems, however, the contract was awarded to the Days Inn because of its lower cost to the agency.
Grunewald took the agency to task for extending its initial agreement with the hotel despite relatively widespread concerns about health and safety. The contract’s first year ended Sept. 30, 2006 but included three “option” years.
The arbitrator noted that “there is ample evidence in the record to support the view that there were serious health and safety concerns about the hotel since the outset of the contract,” including a detailed report from an MSC environmental health officer. Grunewald stated that in the face of the union’s grievance, the agency set up an individual complaint process through which CIVMARS could voice concerns. He noted, however, that this individual complaint system was not effective because the hotel failed to meet the appropriate standards and that the complaint system could not have addressed the multiple systemic problems at the facility.
He ruled that “by extending services for a period clearly longer than it was obligated contractually, the agency changed its position on the problem.” After the first contract year was concluded and MSC chose to extend its obligation to the hotel, “it unreasonably sought to place the burden on the CIVMARS individually to identify problems and seek relief from a situation of MSC’s own making.”
The agency may appeal the ruling to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. If no appeal is made or of the appeal is unsuccessful, the union will seek to ensure that CIVMARS who stayed in this hotel during the award period will receive the money owed to them.
With this ruling, the union has met two of its major goals with regard to MSC assignments to shoreside hotels. MSC now uses a “three diamond” standard when selecting hotels on both the east and west coasts. The union is still pursuing its unfair labor practice against the agency to ensure that when hotels are selected the union is able to negotiate with MSC regarding the standards at individual facilities.
CIVMARS will be updated as the unfair labor practice process continues.
Printer Friendly Page