Loading...
01/23/1991 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING January 23, 1991 Impasse Resolution for Fraternal Order of Police #10 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in Commission Chambers at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner William Nunamaker Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Also present were: Ron H. Rabun City Manager Kathy Rice Assistant City Manager/Administration Harrison C. Thompson, Jr. City's Labor Attorney Cary Singletary Attorney for FOP #10 M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. Milton A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney, introduced the proceedings stating the public hearing is fixed by the Employee Public Bargaining Law. He read Florida Statutes Section 447.403(4)c and 447.403(4)d into the record. He stated the sole purpose of this public hearing is for city management and the employee organization to present their positions to the City Commission. Cary Singletary, representing Fraternal Order of Police #10 (FOP 10), reviewed the history of bargaining between the City and the Union. He stated that bargaining for this contract began in the summer of 1990, and that bargaining has continued in good faith with no unusual delays. He stated the Union did not declare impasse until it felt it had to. He stated the Union is willing to accept the Special Master's recommendation in total if the City will agree to do so. If not, there are several issues to be resolved on which the City and the Union do not agree. A) Preamble The Hearing Officer recommends, and the Union accepts, that the contract be retroactive to October 1st, 1990; The City rejects this recommendation. He stated if the contract is not retroactive, the employees lose the benefit for that portion of the year between October 1st and when the contract is ratified. He stated the City's reasoning that not allowing retroactivity would encourage the unions to negotiate sooner and declare impasse sooner would result in the Commission going through impasse proceedings during the budget process. He reiterated the Union's recommendation that the contract be retroactive to October 1st. B) Staffing levels and schedules on holidays The City requested, and the Special Master recommended, a change in language which provides that the City's right to determine whether an employee will work on holidays and to determine the appropriate level of staffing in the schedule employees will observe on holidays will apply to all bargaining unit employees. Under the current collective bargaining agreement, the City's right with regard to holiday scheduling and staffing does not apply to employees assigned to the patrol division. Mr. Singletary stated the Union does not accept this recommendation as it could result in officers showing up for work and being sent home, which would disrupt their schedule and deny them the premium pay for that day. He requested this recommendation be rejected. C) Additional floating holiday requested by the Union The Special Master recommended denial of this request and the City accepts this. The Union requests the additional holiday as the rigors of the job require additional time off. The Union urges rejection of the Special Master's recommendation that an additional floating holiday not be granted. D) Vacation accrual it was requested by the Union that union employees be allowed to accumulate all their vacation beginning their 16th year until they retire, and that additional vacation accrual be granted at ten years. Mr. Singletary stated many police officers retire at twenty years, and they need additional monies to make the transition to civilian life. He stated if they choose to not take vacation, they could accumulate it and have funds when they retire. He stated the cost to the City would be diminimus. The City and the Special Master recommend denial of this request. E) Court attendance The City recommended during negotiations that minimum court and standby time be reduced from three to two hours. Mr. Singletary indicated this would essentially result in a one percent reduction of income to employees. He recommended that court and standby time be left as is in the current contract. F) Funeral leave The Union requested an increase in days off from four to five for immediate family, and from two to three days for close family members. They also requested that aunts and uncles be included in the definition of immediate family. Mr. Singletary stated the Union felt additional time was needed for officers to deal with death of immediate and close family members. He stated the City and Special Master recommended denial of this request. G) Wages The Union accepts the Special Master's recommendation that a five percent cost of living increase retroactive to October 1, 1990 be granted. The City rejects the five percent increase, recommending a one and one-half percent non-retroactive increase. Mr. Singletary tied this into another recommendation of the City to change the way in which raises are given for performance. He stated under the current proposal the percentage of wage granted to the employee would be based on the evaluation, and after the first five years, there are two year intervals between merit increases. He stated the City has not come up with a system that would warrant deviation from the current system at this time. He stated the current proposal would lead to favoritism and result in net reductions in raises to police officers. Therefore, his recommendation is to leave the pay structure as is and grant the five percent pay increase retroactive to October 1, 1990. H) Duration, modification and termination The City's proposal is that the contract be granted for three years. The Union states the Special Master recommendation should be accepted for a one year contract retroactive to October 1, 1990. The City recommends a one year contract, but rejects the retroactive portion of the recommendation. Mr. Singletary stated, again, the Union is prepared to accept the total Special Master recommendations if the City is ready to accept it. He stated the Special Master has indicated in his order that the recommendations are fashioned in order to give symmetry to the whole contract, and he does not recommend a piecemeal approach to the issues. Six citizens spoke in support of FOP #10's recommendations, and requested that a five percent pay increase retroactive to October 1, 1990 be granted. Harrison C. Thompson, Jr., Labor Attorney for the City, stated the Clearwater Police Department is recognized as a very dedicated and able Police Department, and the City is not attempting to cut the Police Department. He stated the labor negotiators had been enjoined to try to hold the line and attempted to follow those directions. He stated this is the first time in years that the City has offered proposals that did cut some of the benefits offered. He stated the bulk of the contract has been dealt with, with agreement between the two sides. He reviewed the items at issue: A - Preamble. He stated in the preamble, the City is opposed to the retroactive aspects because it does prolong the collective bargaining process. If bargaining were settled before the budget is adopted, it would be better for the City. He stated the City had recommended that the Union bring its proposals directly to the City Commission prior to a Special Master, however, they did not wish to do this. B - Staffing levels and schedules on holidays. He stated at issue in the scheduling of holidays is that the City has to control its operations, and requests the right to assign people as needed. He stated scheduling does occur ahead of time, and it is the City's desire to assure appropriate staffing levels are on hand during holidays. C - Additional floating holiday. As to the issue of an additional floating holiday, Mr. Thompson stated the City is opposed due to economic reasons. Police officers already receive 13 holidays throughout the year, which is more than any other jurisdiction provides. D - Vacation accrual. He stated the issue on vacation accrual and the ability to accumulate it from the 16th year is also economic. The City's vacation provisions are currently very generous. He stated the logic of the Union in this regard contradicts the need for additional holidays to deal with the rigors of the job. Accumulation (not taking vacation during the last four years) would be counterproductive. E - Court attendance. He stated the City's position on court attendance was also for economic reasons. He stated currently an officer is paid for a minimum of three hours of work time whether he is in court three hours or not. The three hours are also counted as time worked for overtime purposes. He stated the same argument holds for standby time. F - Funeral Leave. He stated the City's current funeral leave policy is extremely generous, and the City recommends holding the line. G - Wages. On the wage issue, Mr. Thompson stated the City feels the police are doing a beautiful job and do deserve a raise; however, the City can not afford what the Union is asking at this time. He stated raises between 1982 and 1989 exceeded the increases in the cost of living by thirteen percent (13%). He stated things have changed in Clearwater; the tax base is shrinking and the City Commission is trying to keep taxes down. The City recommends a one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) increase. He stated the City is also recommending a change in structure tying better pay for better work. He stated this was a recommendation in a report done by Cody and Associates. He stated the range for this merit increase would be from six to two percent (6- 2%) and would be in addition to the cost of living increase. As to the duration of the contract, Mr. Thompson indicated the City agrees a one year contract is appropriate; however, they do not agree with the recommendation that the pay increase be retroactive to October 1, 1990. Debbie Crumbley, associate working with Mr. Thompson, reviewed the cost impacts of the Union's requests. She stated the City is not saying no just for the sake of saying no, but that the City's revenue stream has decreased. She stated that, in comparison with other jurisdictions, the City is competitive in its pay structure and the Commission has to look at the entire package of benefits offered. She stated the parties have made significant progress in the contract with much of the language being stipulated to. Cary Singletary, in making his rebuttal, stated if the City Commission chooses, the Union is ready to accept the entire Special Master's recommend- ations. He stated the Union only rejected issues in the recommendation when the City said it did not want to accept the Special Master's recommendations. He reviewed the financial impact on police officers, and stated a five percent (5%) increase would not result in the officers breaking even with the current CPI. He stated the proposed change in the pay structure would result in chaos and a loss in pay over the years. He stated it is important that an effective wholesome place to work be provided, and the Union is only asking acceptance of the Special Master's recommendations. Harrison Thompson, in his rebuttal, stated he wanted to make it clear that the City's proposals are not directed at the police officers, but the City management is trying to be fiscally responsible. He stated the tax revenue is changing, and it is not as easy as it used to be to grant the Union's request. He stated that, while staff feels the police officers probably deserve the five percent (5%) increase, the City can not afford it. He stated the police officer's benefit packages are generous. Commissioner Regulski questioned the pension benefits, and it was stated Hillsborough County offers a 65% on the job disability pension while the City of Clearwater's is 75%. A question was raised regarding the total amount of money that would be needed to institute the Special Master's total recommendation. It was indicated this had not been calculated. Discussion ensued regarding court time and how it is calculated and applied to the officers. It was indicated that if an employee is scheduled for court appearance on a day off, they are initially on standby time until they are either called to court or called to tell them that the case is postponed, dismissed, or that the officer is no longer needed. It was indicated that, if a call came during the standby time to cancel the court call, the officer would receive a minimum of four hours standby pay which would be straight time. If the officer were called during the standby period to come to court, the standby time would cease and court time begin. If the officer is at court for one hour, he would be paid for three, and that time would be used for calculating overtime. If an employee is on standby longer than four hours, they receive pay for the amount of time they are on standby; if they are in court longer than three hours, they receive the pay for the hours they are actually in court. It was stated if an officer is on standby or in court during regular time worked, there would be no additional pay. The meeting recessed from 7:14 to 7:28 p.m. Debbie Crumbley reported to the Commission that the only cost factor outside of what the City had already calculated would be the five percent (5%) retroactive pay increase which would result in $374,973 over what the City currently has budgeted. This is the impact of this one union . A question was raised regarding the supplementary pension, and it was indicated this is funded by insurance. Discussion ensued regarding how different jurisdictions administer this plan; and it was indicated that, if a City of Clearwater employee was injured on the job, they would get a 75% disability pension plus the supplemental pension through the State. In response to a question regarding the range of benefit of the supplemental pension plan, it was indicated it depends on the number of days the officer participated in the plan. It was indicated the benefit ranges from $5-6 a day of time worked, and the officer would have to have five years in with the department unless they go out on a disability pension. It was indicated that a 20 year police officer would receive close to $40,000 from this supplemental pension. A question was raised regarding the recommendation that the contract be retroactive and the City's argument in opposition to this. Mr. Thompson indicated if impasse was reached prior to the budget, the wages could be settled prior to the budget being adopted. Pete Fire, FOP #10 Union President, stated, in regard to disability pensions, that while Tampa gets 65%, they also have a cost of living adjustment in their pension plan whereas the City does not. Items with no changes already agreed to by the Union and the City requiring no vote It was indicated that the language in the following articles have been agreed to and no vote is needed to accept them. Those articles are as follows: Article 2 - Representatives of Parties Article 8, Section 10 - Productivity Article 9 - Prevailing Rights Article 14 Section 3 - Recall Pay Section 6 - Physical Examinations and Inoculation Pay Section 8 - Uniform Allowance Section 9 - Line of Duty Injury Pay Section 10 - Insurance Section 11 - Overtime Pay Section 15 - Funeral Detail Section 16 - Legal Protection Section 17 - Copies of Municipal Code Section 18 - Standby Pay Section 19 - Special Duty Callout Section 22 - Canine Officers Article 16 - Amendments Article 17 - Severability and Waiver Article 20 - Training Impasse: Stipulated Language - Both the City and Union have agreed to the following language changes. One motion required. The following items are agreed to by both parties as stipulated language: Article 1 - Recognition Article 3 - City Management Rights Article 4 - Grievance Procedures Article 5 - No Strike Article 6 - Stewards, Checkoff and FOP Business Article 7 - No Discrimination Article 8 Section 1 - Sick Leave Section 2 - Military Leave Section 3 - Time Off Section 4 - Leave without Pay Section 5 - Personnel Records Section 6 - Residency Requirements Section 7 - Tobacco Product Usage Section 8 - Seat Belts and Safety Gear Section 9 - Outside Employment Section 11 - Probationary Periods Article 10 - Existing Rules Article 11 - Police Officer Duties Article 12 - Seniority Article 13 - Promotional Procedures Article 14 Section 4 - Acting in Higher Position Pay Section 13 - Compensatory Time Allowance Article 15 - Bulletin Boards, Rules and Regulations, Memos and posting and copying of Agreement Article 19 - Discipline Article 20 - Substance Use and Testing Commissioner Nunamaker moved to approve the Stipulated Language Articles and Sections as stated. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Recommendations of the Special Master Accepted by both the City and the Union. Each requires a separate motion. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the Special Master's recommendation regarding Holiday Premium Pay in Article 14, Section 1 d. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Special Master's recommendation regarding Shift Differential in Article 14, Section 14. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Special Master's recommendation regarding Off Duty Calls in Article 14, Section 21. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Special Master's recommendation regarding Contract Constitutes Entire Agreement in Article 18. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Berfield moved to approve the Special Master's recommendation regarding Review Boards in Article 21. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Commissioner Regulski moved to approve the Special Master's recommendation regarding Sick/Injury Language which is found throughout the contract. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Recommendations for issues rejected by the City and/or the Union. Each requires a separate motion. Holiday Premium Pay - Article 14, Section 1a (Staffing Level and Schedules) Concerns were expressed that the City being able to indiscriminately schedule officers for holiday work would be disruptive, and that the City did not have a clear proposal on how this would work. Kathy Rice, Assistant City Manager for Administration, indicated that, mainly, there were some special teams with which the City had issue and the City is merely requesting the right to determine which people are needed on holidays. In response to a question, she indicated holiday work is scheduled ahead of time; and if someone were to come to work and be sent home, they would be paid for a minimum of two hours. She indicated patrol officers are scheduled four months in advance. Deputy Chief Desmarais indicated there was no intention to cut officers; however, there was some disagreement regarding who is defined as a street officer. He stated there may be special teams that are not needed on holidays, and administration is merely requesting the discretion to schedule the officers. A question was raised regarding how far in advance special teams are scheduled. It was indicated they generally receive five days notice. Concern was again expressed regarding the absence of a defined procedure. Commissioner Regulski moved to deny the Special Master's recommendation on Article 14, Section 1(a) to delete the current contract language which provides that the City's rights with regards to holiday staffing and scheduling of employees shall not apply to assigned uniform street officers. Discussion ensued regarding the City's request to allow management prerogative in this area. Mike Laursen, Personnel Director, indicated the question was not rescheduling, but rather who would work on holidays. Mr. Singletary reiterated the employees concern that they would come into work and be sent home. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Nunamaker moved to adopt the Special Master's recommendation on Article 14, Section 1(a) to delete the current contract language which provides that the City's rights with regards to holiday staffing and scheduling of employees shall not apply to assigned uniform street officers. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield and Nunamaker and Mayor Garvey voted "aye." Commissioner Regulski voted "nay." Motion carried. Floating Holidays - Article 14, Section 1 (f) Commissioner Regulski moved to adopt the Special Master's recommendation on floating holidays. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Vacation - Article 14, Section 2 Commissioner Regulski moved to adopt the Special Master's recommendation to maintain the current level and practice with regard to vacation benefits. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Funeral Leave - Article 14, Section 7 Commissioner Regulski moved to adopt the Special Master's recommendation with regard to funeral leave. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Court Attendance - Article 14, Section 5 Commissioner Regulski moved to accept the Special Master's recommendation to leave court time and court standby time as it is in the current contract. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Fitzgerald, Berfield and Regulski voted "aye." Commissioner Nunamaker and Mayor Garvey voted "nay. Motion carried. Merit and Longevity Increase - Article 14, Section 20 Debbie Crumbley indicated that the Commission needs to consider whether or not they wish to go with the pay for performance proposal of the City. She stated if the City does go with this plan, the issue regarding merit and longevity will no longer apply. Commissioner Nunamaker moved that Article 14, Section 20 on merit and longevity increases remain in the contract as currently written. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed pay for performance plan being a radical change and needing more work in order to be fair and beneficial. It was indicated the Commission wishes to work towards pay for performance in the future. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. In response to a question, it was indicated this motion will not result in any increase to the current budget. Wages - Article 14, Section 12 The Mayor stated there are two issues: 1) the percentage of increase and 2) whether or not it is to be retroactive. Commissioner Regulski moved to grant a two and one-half percent (2-1/2%) general wage increase retroactive to October 1, 1990. In response to a question, it was indicated this would result in $37,497 in addition to what is currently budgeted for this union. Concerns were expressed regarding this being retroactive to October 1st. Concerns were also expressed regarding this resulting in monies being needed over what is currently budgeted. Commissioner Regulski withdrew his motion and then moved to grant a two percent (2%) general wage increase retroactive to October 1, 1990. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Commissioners Regulski, Nunamaker, Berfield and Mayor Garvey voted "aye." Commissioner Fitzgerald voted "nay." Motion carried. Duration, Modification and Termination - Article 23 and Preamble (Retroactivity) Commissioner Berfield moved that the Union be offered a one year contract retroactive to October 1, 1990 only as to the general wage increase previously approved, and non-retroactive as to all other items except those specifically agreed to by the parties. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.