Roquette releases another statement following negotiations

UPDATE: January 12 at 3:24 p.m.

Roquette America published a news release Wednesday looking to clarify key issues concerning the most recent contract proposal with 48G.

Neither the union nor Roquette have established any future negotiating dates.

Roquette continues to ask that union leadership change their position on the lockout and contract.

Read the full news release from January 12th here.

In the release, Roquette compares the 2010 proposals to the 2006 contract.

Do you think the changes are fair?


Following negotiations on December 28, Roquette issued the following statement:

Roquette America is very disappointed in the outcome of the latest negotiation session with BCTGM Local 48G, held on December 28th, said Tom Ross, Roquette TMs Human Resources Director.

The negotiation session ended early when the union leadership refused to support the Company TMs contract proposal as long as it includes any of the five following points:

1. Continuation of the Company TMs long-recognized right to use subcontractors2. Elimination of a Company paid union president position3. A two-tier health plan with a cap on employee premiums4. Lower paid wage rate only for new hires5. Flexible staffing procedure for any new operations facility

Despite the union leadership TMs claims to represent the best interest of their members, the union negotiating committee TMs minor contract concessions still have not substantively addressed the Company TMs core issues. Ross continued, As we have previously stated, the Company TMs core goals attempt to establish a balance between the needs of the employees and Roquette America TMs continued business sustainability and future growth opportunities.

At the November 30 negotiation session both parties mutually agreed that future negotiation sessions would be held on December 13, 14 and 28. This latest unproductive session and the union TMs continued unwillingness to address core issues seriously questions how any near-term negotiation sessions can produce a resolution of the labor dispute, said Ross. Therefore, neither the union nor the Company has established any future negotiating dates. We sincerely hope that the union leadership modifies its current position so the labor dispute ends and bargaining unit members return to work.