John M. Driscoll, General Manager
November 17, 2015
and the Board directly regarding their proposal of 9-30-2015 and our counter-proposal of 10-27-
and the Superintendent. Chris was visibly upset at this since Local 104 had 21 days already to
prepare a second proposal as a response to the TMLP's first counter-proposal but instead Local
104 appeared to be re-submitting their initial offer as if it was a new document. Chris informed
Brian that Local 104 was wasting the Board's time. Brian stated that he had merely passed out
this document to begin a review session of what article items had already been agreed to and
thus need not be negotiated any further. The Manager was confused by this since he had
already included a cover sheet with 6 responses to their 6 items on their initial proposal:
shalla total of forty-three times in the document that he had presented to Local 104 as the
TMLP's counter-proposal. The Board already knew this since they had been given a copy of the
counter-proposal by the Manager on October 27,2015.
that the TMLP had proposed to Local 104. Brian insisted that some items that were previously
included had been left out of this counter-proposal document, namely the standby vehicle Article
This institution is an equal opporlunity provider and employer
this must have been an oversight on his part, as neither the Board nor he had any desire to re-
negotiate the standby vehicle or the vehicle air conditioning. The Manager stated that he would
present local 104 with an updated version of a draft agreement with those items included once
and 4 Sick days and re-classify sick time as non-accumulating. Brian stated that this was going
from 13 paid time off days to 7/ another affirmation required by the Manager in order to move
on. Brian also asked for clarification on the short-term disability plan being offered by the TMLP
as to how many paid time off days the carrier would require in advance of releasing
compensation benefits. The Manager stated that this was a run-of-the-mill policy, with coverage
for injury on Day 1 and for illness on Day 8; hence the five non-accumulating sick days.
affirmation of any and all article language that the Manager had redlined previousiv, whether it
was a wholly new concept or an effort toward consistency (like changing all 43 words to either
will or shall and actually referring to the TMlP as The Employer).
union as he thought that she "did a lot for the light department" (his words) and said they
planned to negotiate just as they had in past years. The Manager offered no response to this at
this time/ but was visibly disappointed.
a conversation with Brigid on her job duties and responsibilities and that Local 104 would be
providing the TMlP with a job description for her (as of December 9, 2015 no such description
has been received by the TMLP).
existing job descriptions for the union members in Local 104. Both Brian and Nick stated that all
of them had been given job descriptions to follow when they were hired and those were the ones
that Local 104 wished to have re-done because of the wind turbine work, The Manager and the
Board were of the mindset that because there were no formal job descriptions within the current
contract that had been accepted by vote by either the union or by management then in fact
there were no electric job descriptions inside the light union at all. The Manager stated that he
(John) and the Superintendent (Tom) and the Business Manager (Kathy) are the only three light
employees with job descriptions,
classifications for 5 of the 8 in the union group then there would in fact be job descriptions for
everyone, not just the ones working on the wind turbine. He stated that this had the potential to
be a long drawn-out process, whereas both Local 104 and the TMlP would have to mutually
agree to said job descriptions, and since none formally existed to date, their formation would be
a give-and-take process, not just a take.
proposal, which happened to be stili our original counter-proposal, The Board and the Manager
were not sure why this had not been done already through meetings with Local 104 and the
union group here. This particular Open Session meeting between the TMLP and Local 104 was
not a productive one to say the least and at its conclusion neither management nor the union
were clear on where the negotiating status stood.
accusations made by the light union group here thru Local 104 that safety was not being taken
seriously here at the TMLP when it related to the wind turbine. Both the Manager and the
Superintendent had worked to promote a safe work environment both inside and outside of the
wind turbine going back to September 2010, its commercial operation date. Neither of them had
any recollection of ever saying NO to any additional equipment, tools or safety training necessary
for wind turbine work, yet there were allegations being made throughout tonight's conversation
with Local 104 that such an unsafe work environment had been pushed onto 5 of the 8 in this
light union group here.
the deafening silence of Nick Houston the Shop Steward here throughout much if not all of
Brian's monologue on wind turbine safety. At no point in the Open Session was Brian corrected
by Nick on any of these indirect accusations against John and against Tom. It shall forthwith be
our opinion that the ENTIRE group feels this way and not just Nick, his being the representative
of the light union group in Local 104.
against the TMLP by Local 104 in an open public meeting which has necessitated an internal
investigation by John and by Tom. Both of us will be going through work orders and tailboard
discussion worksheets and having discussions about past morning meetings going back to
September 2010 in Tom's office with the Working Foreman and the two Lead linemen in an
effort to come upon instances documented where the TMLP has said NO to workplace safety.]
suggestions for light rate decreases in generation charges for 2016. There was no substantial
conversation about either topic since it made little sense to make these types of decisions tonight
while in the midst of what was appearing to be a long union negotiation process. Basically the
light budget and the light rate changes were to be tabled till further notice.
thru October 31 had been extended to November 14. The Manager was not concerned about the
cost of replacement power since November ATC power for the WCMA Load Zone was averaging
only 2.S9¢ per KWH. It would not have a detrimental effect on November Power Supply Costs,
the Light Plant having an additional 2.4 MW open to the market for 14 extra days.
entire country, broken down by state. He had made copies of the Massachusetts page for the
Board to view. Templeton had an average retail electric rate of 13.23¢ per KWH compared to
Northeast Utilities at 16.2S¢, National Grid at 16.63¢ and Unitil at 20.81¢ per KWH for 2014.
the Manager. The figures for 2015 were 4,460,663 KWH and $558,449. The figures for 2014
were 4,427,790 KWH and $555,481. There appeared to be no appreciable difference in KWH
sold or revenue collected from October 2014 to October 2015.
particularly require any specific discussion:
October 2015 Wind Generation
Q3 2.015 MMWEC Electric Rate Comparisons
Executive Session to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with union
personnel. The Light Commission believed that if it were to conduct such strategy sessions in
Open Session it would have a detrimental effect on the Light Plant's collective bargaining
Chris, 3-0 in favor the Light Commissioners' Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.