Four Roses releases statement on union strike

ANDERSON COUNTY, Ky. (WTVQ)- Four Roses Bourbon Distillery made its first public comments disputing striking union workers claims as the two sides negotiate over paid time off and sick time policies, which are the heart of the union strike.

The striking workers claim the company proposed a two-tier sick leave policy that discriminates against new hires.

The company says it never proposed a two-tier wage plan.

The company says it wants future hires to get ten sick days a year, but could no longer ‘bank’ them if they don’t use them which current workers can do, but instead would get short-term disability benefits, which current employees declined.

The two sides are still at odds.

Here is the full statement from Four Roses:

While we have tried not to conduct negotiations publicly in the media, several media reports have contained some inaccuracies that we would like to correct. We value our employees and recognize they are a crucial part of what makes Four Roses a special Bourbon. We have been negotiating in good faith with the unions and offered a competitive package for our employees.

We have never proposed a two-tier wage plan. We had originally proposed that only currently employees could receive 6 weeks’ vacation after 25 years of service. Employees hired in the future would be limited to 5 weeks vacation. We dropped that proposal in the last negotiating session. There is no two-tier proposal on vacations.

For many years, employees have received sick days and long-term disability benefits, but they had no short-term disability, so they had to use sick days to “bridge” them until long term disability started. Current employees receive 10 sick days per year and have been able to build up a “bank” of up to 60 sick days.

In the negotiations, we proposed that current employees would, for the first time, receive short term disability benefits. We also proposed changes to the way the “bank” could be used. We did so because in our opinion the need for the “bank” was reduced because they would have short term disability benefits to “bridge” them to long term disability.

The bargaining committees for all unions told us they preferred to keep their “bank” and did not want short term disability. At the last negotiating session, we agreed to let them keep their present plan unchanged.

However, we still feel short term disability is a more modern, and better, method of dealing with extended absences. We have proposed that employees hired in the future would receive 10 sick days per year but cannot build up a “bank”. They would receive short term disability benefits, which current employees declined.

A claim that we are proposing a “two-tier” sick leave policy that discriminates against new hires is not true. We agree that the new hires would not receive the same sick leave benefits as current employees, but we believe the new hires’ program is better, not worse. Now, a current employee who has insufficient sick days in the “bank” has nothing to rely on until long term disability benefits start. New hires will never find themselves in that situation. So, we gave current employees what they said they wanted, and new hires something different, but, we think, better.

Although the unions rejected our last offer, they did not inform us why they turned it down. At our last meeting, the unions told as they were unwilling to change any of their positions, and then they went on strike. We have heard nothing that leads us to believe they have changed their position.