SEOUL — U.S. Army officials have issued a second denial to a request from nine Army Corps of Engineers civilians for five months of “standby pay” for complying with a mandatory overnight curfew.
The request for back wages — which could add up to thousands of dollars for each worker — was denied because too much time elapsed between the time the curfew began in September and the time the union-backed grievance was filed in March, three weeks after the curfew was lifted, according to a letter from Col. Janice Dombi, the workers’ commander for Army Corps in South Korea.
The April 29 denial also said the grievance failed to show, in detail, how each of the nine workers were “restricted to living quarters, had activities substantially limited, and were required to remain in a state of readiness” during the curfew policy’s five-month duration.
The president of Local 1363 of the National Federation of Federal Employees said the denial was no surprise and that the union will continue to push the issue.
“We expected all of the denials, cause there’s a lot of money at stake,” Jeffrey Meadows said in a phone interview Thursday afternoon. “The only problem is the union doesn’t have a lot of money.”
Meadows would prefer to go to arbitration, where a neutral, third-party arbiter would come to South Korea, study both sides’ arguments, and render a decision. That service could cost $15,000 to $20,000, a fee that would be split between the union and management, Meadows said.
The union potentially represents thousands of civilian workers here, but it has only a few dozen dues-paying members, Meadows has said. If the union’s headquarters refuses to pay the arbiter’s fee, Local 1363 would have to raise the money on its own, he said.
The union also can file an “unfair labor practice” complaint with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. That option is free, but it could be several months before the case is heard, Meadows said.
Last fall, U.S. Forces Korea leaders ordered civilian workers to comply with the troops’ nightly curfew to ensure safety and readiness among all personnel. In subsequent written orders and in interviews, USFK officials have said the curfew was needed to ensure both force protection and force readiness.
The policy prompted an outcry among some civilian workers and their family members. In late February, the union decided to fight for back wages Meadows believes are due because of the union’s current contract.
Dombi, in her written response, disagrees. The five-page rejection says the curfew never required those workers to standby at work, be off the streets, or perform work duties while at home during the midnight to 5 a.m. curfew.
“Even if for the purpose of argument we assume that the employees were restricted to their ‘living quarters,’ their activities were not substantially limited and they were not required to remain in a state of readiness to perform work,” Dombi wrote.
Meadows says he thinks that is an unfair description of the curfew’s impact on civilian workers here.
“We have a strong case and feel that the word-twisting and attempts to sidestep the issue will be ignored by an unbiased judge,” he said.
The union will make a decision by May 23 about how to proceed, he said.
