KEOKUK, IOWA -- 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’s Human Resources Director. 

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

1. Continuation of the Company’s long-recognized right to use subcontractors
2. Elimination of a Company paid union president position
3. A two-tier health plan with a cap on employee premiums
4. Lower paid wage rate only for new hires
5. Flexible staffing procedure for any new operations facility

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