RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR FIRE DEPARMENT AND REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER
~
I
,
r
.'
MEMORANDUM TO:
The City Commis sion.
Floyd f~:6'1rJ;
FROM:
City Manager Picot B.
DA T E:
December 24, 1975
SUBJECT:
Recommendations Concerning Collective
Bargaining for Fire Department and Report
of Special Master.
Since mid-1974, the City has been ,engaged in a series of contract negoti:l.tions
with the Union representing the employees of the Fire Department, the bter-
national Association of Firefighters, an affiliate of the A FL- CIO. In Ma y,
1974, the negotiations resulted in a 15% wage increase. In the Fall of 1<174,
the negotiations were concluded with the execution of a thirty-nine (39) page
contract covering a variety of issues. In early 1975, the City agreed to an
amendment to the contract providing incentive pay for fire department elnployees
as signed as paramedics totalling an additional 15% over regular fire dep:l.rtment
salary levels. This Summer and Fall the City negotiated again with the Union
for a new contract for the 1975-1976 fis cal year.
This year the Union initially demanded wa'ge increases of approximately 30%.
The City's negotiating team's offer was to continue the standard municipal anneal
merit and longevity increases, but not provide an acros s -the- board increc s,~
dqring this year. The City Commis sion will recall at the time of Budget:
Hearings, the question of such an increase for all employees was raised, howev,z..:,
based upon the economy, revenue projections, competitiveness in the job market,
and that such an increase would have required a one mill tax increase, the budget
was approved without an appropriation for an across-the-board pay incrl~ase. In
addition to the 30% pay increase issue, the Union also demanded more tran 30
changes frorrl the first contract.
Because we were unable to resolve all of our differences by bargaining, the
law required that we proceed to a "special master" hearing. A" special master"
is a neutral party who listens to both sides and issues recommendations as to
how the parties should, in his opinion, settle their differences. In this case,
the special master was Dr. Donald Wilcox, a retired professor of indusl:rial
engineering at the University of Florida. Dr. Wilcox's recommendations are
not binding on either the Union or the City. The recommendations are only
advisory and either side can accept them or reject them at their discret:.on. If
either rejects all or part of the recommendations, the issues are brought to the
City Commission at a public hearing for final determination. You may bave read
recently where management in cities such as St. Petersburg, Dunedin, Tarpon
Springs, and many others have refused to follow the advice of special masters.
/
CO-1d"d-,.oi' ~.c;)
-",4..;,.,_.......,;.;.~,,~>..M~:..,\#',r:'J,~,.....,I"''''..!o.:.....,'',J<;.:~...;.;.~_.'~..~~,
~ ......'"'....:~ ..-.i...:..........~~'_' ''1-';(-'" '""'- .~.._.40.:-".L;",...;.#~..........~_... .<l>&. .........:~
-..-
1
,.
~
1 ,
The City C<;)mmission
Page Two
December 24, 1975
Dr. Wilcox had thirty (30) issues before him, of which, twenty-four (24) of
the issues, he recommended that the Union accept the City position. On,~
item was recommended to be further negotiated by the Union and the City
Administration. On four issues, the special master recommended the City
accept the Union's position. Regarding the final issue, wages, the special
master rej ected the Union's final demand for 15%, rejected the City's po sition
of no general increase, and recommended a salary adjustment of 6%.
At this p.oint, based upon a detailed review of the budget, job market and
economic conditions, I cannot recommend a 6% salary adjustment, and
therefore, according to law, I submit to the City Commission my recomm.endations.
On the twenty-four (24) items Dr. Wilcox decided in favor of the City, WE take
no exception. Our recommendation is based on our justification as stated in
Mr. Sizemore's (the City's labor relations counsel) attached brief _ which was
submitted to the special master - and not becaus e we feel "bound" by the special
master's advice.
I have decided to accept the Union's proposals on three of the four issues that
the special master sided with the Union. These items are as follows:
1. A change weakening the City's "no-strike" protection
afforded by the prior contract. On this issue, I feel
that our fire department employees are professionals
who will observe the constitutional restriction against
a public employee strike. Additionally, there are methods,
while not entirely adequate at this time, to restrict
illegal strikes. For these reasons, I believe the City
will not be damaged greatly by agreeing to the Union
position.
2. The Union wanted the City to carry the expense of
dry cleaning blankets used as bedding by the employees.
Since the cost is minimal, I recomm.end the City agree
on this issue.
3. The Union requested that if someone is called in to
work early, the employee should receive a minimum
of four hours' pay for the inconvenience. Again, the
cost is small, and I recommend the City agree to
this proposal.
.~. "i-o","~'~.:<l,~~~;''''',,,;,,,;,,,.:,,.,. ", \ ""'."~I""""'.,''''__~~'''''''''''_'''\...i-'''-'''''.''_:''''''__'' ..-.
I
I
,
,
The City. Commission
Page Three
December 24, 1975
I support Dr. Wilcox's position on the one issue where he requested tbe parties
to continue to negotiate. This issue, involving damage to personal property
while an employee is fighting a fire or engaged in rescue, is one which the
City' ~ and Union's bargaining teams should be able to resolve.
On the final issues, wage increases and the effective date for wage increases,
I strongly recommend that the City Commission reject the advisory com-
promise of 6%. While this decision - like so many that face the Comnlission
is not an easy decision, several factors compel me to recommend to tne
Commission that it not depart from current plans and therefore not have an
across-the-board pay adjustment this year. This is as previously pre,posed
by me in the current budget, and as adopted by the City Commis sion, with no
tax increase in this depressed national and local economy.
Among the many reasons for not having an across-the-board adjustment is that
the City is already paying a very competitive salary to our firefighter 3. In the
last three (3) years, more than 550 persons have applied for positions in our
Fire Department. Additionally, the turnover rates in the Fire Department are
extremely low, approximately 40/0 annually. The City is already paying wages
that will attract arid allow for retention of highly qualified fire personnel with
good morale. In other words, being a firefighter for Clearwater is a very
attractive position, and we are not experiencing -a problem in terms of )'e-
n~aining competitive with nearby jurisdictions. In this connection, cur &da!'ies
compare favorably with those in neighboring communities as shown in the
attachments. St. Petersburg, the only really comparable city in Pinellas County,
just gave its firefighters a 6% wage increase. However, even with that increase
our department's starting pay is approximately $600.00 per year more than
currently paid by St. Petersburg. Of the smaller communities in the county,
we are above some and below others, though they are so much smaller as to
render a comparison to be of little value.
The second compelling factor in my recommendation concerns the prc,priety of
singling out one employee group for treatment not accorded the remaining
employees. During the budget process, the Commission dealt at some length,
with the economic problems facing the City and its res idents. After much
discussion, the Commission did not budget a general wage increase for any of
our twelve hundred (1200) employees other than the normal 5% meritlncreases
and longevity increases. While we unquestionably have an excellent Fire
Department, with well-trained, highly motivated employees, I cannot recommend
that they receive a wage increase to counter the rise in the cost of living while
no adjustment is rna de for the remaining 950 employees. The cost to provide
a general across-the-board increase would approxim,ate the revenues generated
by a one mill tax increase and would continue to be an obligation of the City i.n
.....~.....,.'~_.....:--._- ~.-....
~~,.~".-....'.....
I
I
"..,
f
The City Commission
Page Four
December 24, 1975
future years. Granting such an increas e, retroactive to October 1, 1975,
would mean delaying a number of important capital projects, which would~n
turn, remove ernployment opportunities for Clearwater's many unemployed.
Add to this the uncertainty about extension of Federal Revenue Sharing b'~yond
December 31, 1976, which also generates about the equivalent of one mill in
revenues, the situation is even bleaker. If the 6% salary increase were
granted we could face a two mill tax increase next year, just to maintain that
increas e if revenue sharing does not continue.
The third factor is the cost of living itself. One can choose a particular point
in time and, in reference to today, say that wages have fallen behind the cost
of living. The record, however, is unmistakenly clear that our employees'
wages have risen much higher than has the cost of living since the cost of
living index was at its starting point in 1967. General wage increas es o"er
that period for City employees, excluding special pay categories, has been
96.2%, while the cost of living index will have risen by the end of 1975-7,) by
approximately 75%. There are many thousands of workers whose wages have
not kept up with the cost of living. Fortunately, our employees are not ccmong
that group.
For these reasons, and others which I have considered, I cannot support a
wage increase for the Fire Department in this !is cal year.
My decision on this difficult issue has not been easy. We have enjoyed a good
relationship with the firefighters and their union and have recognized thEir
excellence in ways other cities have not. The paramedic pay is a prime example
of how our employees have received more favorable consideration than in almost
any community in Florida. Despite,all of this, there comes a point at which the
City must demonstrate a sound fis cal approach. I do not believe such ar.. approach
is achieved by granting wage increases where competitive pressures art:: non-
existent and the citizens receive quality service; and with the current economic
crises at the local, state and Federal level.
I have been forewarned on numerous occasions that my recommendation,3 will
have severe "political" consequences. The leaders of the firefighters' l'nion
have said that this decision will be a political issue in the forthcoming election.
This threatened political pressure is the kind of pressure that cities across
the country have been exposed to with the advent of public employee unions.
Some cities like Seattle have dealt with the pressure and others like New York
and San Francisco have folded under the threats. These threats have in turn
created fiscal crises. Rather than yield to these pressures I have made cd\
....: "-_':_'~-'-'"-.-. ~---.-.,--- --..;~,~, '.
.
I
I
b
r
I.
i
i
,
!
,r
.
. The City Commission
Page Five
December 24, 1975
independent judgment based on the overall needs of the community.
I was hired by the City Commission to make recommendations based upon my
judgment of what is best "for the City as a whole. It would be a violation of my
obligation to the Commission if I made decisions, such as this one, out of
concern for union political tactics.
The next step in the legal process is for the Commission to consider the
issue at a public hearing. At that time, the Commission is directed by law to
hear the explanations of my position and that of the Union and then in the words
of the statute, "take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, in-
cluding the interest of the public employees involved." I recommended that
the Commission hold the public hearing on January 8, 1976, at 9:30 a. In.
I have attached to this memorandum a copy of the report of Dr. Wilcox, briefs
of the Union's, and Management's position, a salary survey sheet, salary
survey, and a cost of living index comparison sheet.