The 2026 Contract Ratification Revote

Timeline of Events

• May 28, 2026 Initial ratification vote on the proposed agreement (4%/3%/3% wage increases, 20 hours of comp time). Membership voted by valid secret ballot. NO
• Shortly after A union steward circulated posters urging a NO vote, arguing the wage proposal was inadequate and calling the comp-time provision a "bait and switch."
• Following the vote The City asserted a "good faith violation" tied to the steward's campaign materials.
• June 10, 2026 A second ratification vote was held on the same — or substantially the same — proposed agreement. Members were told this was "the best deal the City will offer" and that they "could lose" existing items if they voted NO again. YES
• July 1, 2026 The newly ratified contract took effect.
• Ongoing A written request for clarification on the authority for the revote was sent to the Secretary-Treasurer. No response had been received as of this writing.

Did Local 2 have the authority to hold a second vote?

Specifically: whether Local 2, through the Business Agent and/or other officers, had authority under the Local Bylaws and the IBT Constitution to re-submit an already-rejected, materially unchanged agreement for a second ratification vote — rather than returning to the bargaining table, as the governing documents appear to require.

Bylaw & Constitution Provisions Reviewed

Each item below is a specific provision checked against what happened between May 28 and June 10. Expand any item to read the relevant text and how it applies. The IBT Constitution citations below are checked directly against the International's official text — read the full 2021 IBT Constitution (PDF). The Local 2 Bylaws citations are not independently re-verified in this update.

Filed against: Business Agent, Teamsters Local 2
Mechanism: Section 21 of the Local 2 Bylaws / Article XIX of the IBT Constitution — the internal process for a member to charge an officer, business agent, steward, or member with violating the Bylaws or Constitution.

1. Violation of §27(C) of the Bylaws and Art. XII, §1(b) of the Constitution, by causing or participating in causing the rejected agreement to be re-submitted for a vote on June 10, 2026 — if no intervening negotiations occurred and if the agreement presented on June 10 was materially unchanged from the agreement rejected on May 28.
2. Violation of §20(F)(4) — right to information — for failing to clearly disclose the basis for the City's "good faith violation" claim and the authority relied on for the revote.
3. Violation of the §30 obligation / §15(A) officer oath, by participating in communications that members reasonably perceived as pressure to reverse the May 28 vote.

Procedural requirements: Charges must be in writing, signed, and filed in duplicate with the Local Union Secretary-Treasurer (§21(B)(2)). The accused must receive at least 10 days' notice before any hearing. Conduct older than 5 years is generally barred — not applicable here.

Legal basis: Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution, directed to the City of Bozeman.
Scope: January 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026, covering communications involving the City's bargaining-team members, HR, the City Manager's Office, labor relations staff, and any attorneys or consultants involved in negotiations.

Key categories requested

• All communications — including text messages on City-issued phones — relating to negotiations, tentative agreements, ratification, rejection, and any revote, including internal discussion of whether/when/how a second vote should occur.
• Bargaining proposals, counterproposals, tentative agreements, side agreements, and negotiation notes or minutes.
• Communications on what the City would do if members rejected a tentative agreement — further negotiation, impasse, mediation, or strike procedures.
• Communications concerning efforts to secure ratification, including responses to opposition and strategies for re-ratification.
• Records discussing whether employees could lose negotiated items if the membership rejected the agreement.
• Records of how the rejection and revote were communicated to bargaining unit members.
• Meeting records — calendar entries, agendas, minutes, recordings — involving City and Union representatives after the rejection.
• Records of any unfair labor practice, bad-faith bargaining, grievance, or labor board discussions tied to the process.

The request includes conditions requiring an itemized log of any withheld record and the legal basis for withholding it, electronic production where possible, written acknowledgment within 10 business days, and notice if cost will exceed $50.

A letter was sent requesting written clarification on: what specific Bylaw or Constitutional authority was relied on to hold the June 2026 revote; whether the Executive Board approved it; whether negotiations occurred between the two votes; vote totals; and copies of related Executive Board minutes and communications with the City.

As of this writing, no response has been received. The recommended next step is a single follow-up letter referencing the original, with a firm 10–14 day deadline, stating that absent a response, the next step is filing a formal Section 21 charge.

Share What You Know

This effort is built on first-hand accounts. If you were contacted before the June 10 revote, or your vote changed between May 28 and June 10, that information matters — and your identity will be kept confidential to the fullest extent possible. No fear, no retaliation.

Useful things to include

• Were you contacted by a business agent, steward, or union rep before the revote?
• Were you told negotiations would get worse, or the City would remove items, if members voted NO again?
• Were you told not to discuss negotiations with coworkers?
• Were you given inaccurate information about prior contracts?
• If you voted NO on May 28, what changed your mind by June 10 — and who told you that?
• Any documentary evidence you have — emails, texts, screenshots, recordings — and any witnesses.

Open Questions

Restriction on discussing negotiations with non-members

Open

Some members report being told that dues-paying members could not discuss contract negotiations with non-dues-paying bargaining unit employees. A full-text review of the Local 2 Bylaws and the IBT Constitution found no provision supporting this restriction. Where the instruction came from — informal policy, a misapplied confidentiality pledge, or something else — is still unconfirmed.

Where This Can Go

Because the contract is already in effect, what relief is realistically available — voiding it, prospective/declaratory relief, or back pay — is a question for a Montana public-sector labor attorney.

Documents Produced

• Section 21 ChargeDrafted
• Letter to the Secretary-TreasurerSent
• Montana Right-to-Know Records RequestFinalized
• Member Information FlyerCreated
• Union Contract Wage ComparisonPublished
• This Reference PagePublished

Full document text is available on request: local2voteinfo@gmail.com

How Local 2's Contract Compares

Separate from the revote question: members have asked how the new Teamsters agreement compares to the City's other two represented units. This is general background on past and current contracts, not part of the Section 21 charge. Download the full comparison (.docx).

Each of the City's three represented bargaining units was covered by a multi-year CBA during the comparison period, each with a flat, compounding annual base wage increase. The percentages differ significantly.

Fire — IAFF Local 613

Rechecked Against City CBA

Longevity pay is separate from base, topping out at $510/month at 30+ years. Other value includes EMT and Hazmat pays, a $580/month retirement-augmentation contribution, and $100/month into a separate medical reimbursement trust.

Teamsters Local 2

Not Fully Reverified

Longevity pay is separate from base: $0.10/hour per year of service, capping at $3.00/hour at 30+ years. These figures are drawn from the FY24–26 CBA but have not been independently rechecked line-by-line against the City's published PDF — see the verification note below.

Police — BPPA

Rechecked Against City CBA

Longevity is folded into the 26-step pay scale itself, per Montana Code Annotated 7-32-4116, rather than paid as a separate line item. Other value leans on one-time bonuses (up to $12,900 total) and special-assignment pay (FTO +8%, Detective +3%, Acting Shift Supervisor +6%) that apply only to officers in those roles.

Does the Extra Value Offset the Lower Percentage?

Police's 4.0%/4.0% base raise is the smallest of the three, but all three unions carry meaningful non-base-wage value. Fire and Teamsters both build in separate, career-long longevity pay plus certification and skill pays. Police's extras lean toward one-time bonuses and special-assignment pay that apply only to officers in those specific roles. On base pay alone, Fire and Teamsters outpaced Police over this period — Police's extra value is more bonus- and assignment-dependent, meaningful for officers who qualify, less so for a baseline patrol officer.

Source: Collective Bargaining Agreements published by the City of Bozeman Human Resources Department, bozemanmt.gov