Loading...
Minutes 09-12-02Contractual Negotiation Meeting between IAFF Local 1891 and the City of Boynton Beach Held on Thursday, September 12, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. in Conference Room B, City Hall, Boynton Beach, Florida Present: For IAFF: Mike Fitzpatrick Barkley Garnsey Randy Jute Matt Keeler Dean Kinser Treasurer x6626 Business Agent x6327 President x6340 Secretary x6340 Vice President x6340 For the City: Carol Cheek Wilfred Hawkins Jim Ness Mary Munro HR Coordinator x6278 Assistant City Manager x6012 Deputy Fire Chief x6333 Finance x6314 Openina and Introduction Mr. Hawkins convened the meeting at 10:15 a.m. The City and the Union recorded the meeting. Deputy Chief Ness distributed a blended vacation plan that had been prepared by Chief Bingham at Mr. Hawkins' direction. Topics of Discussion Article 10, Uniforms and Safety Equipment Mr. Hawkins inquired about the specification of the circumstances in which full Class A uniforms would be required. Mr. Kinser stated they were considering the difference between Class A and full Class A and they made a recommendation to call this a "full dress Class A." Article 19, Vacation Mr. Hawkins asked Deputy Chief Ness if Administration had any problem with the requested change in the shift picks from calendar to fiscal year. Deputy Chief Ness stated that Chief Bingham did not relate any problems to him. Mr. Hawkins read the pertinent language from Article 19 as he wanted to be certain that everyone understood this. Chief Bingham's proposal covered the vacation schedule for 48-hour and 40-hour shift employees. Deputy Chief Ness stated that the proposal was on the left-hand side and represented the blended plan. Proposal 01 was the current proposal from last year. The top Meeting Minutes IAFF Local 1891 Contract Negotiation Meeting with The City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2002 light-shaded bar showed a loss of hours from the Current A, pre-1993 plan. It is 120 hours on the proposal versus 144 hours on Current A. Although in Current B, the current program for those who are currently employed, after 1993, there is 120 hours and they also get 120 hours. Under the old formula they got 144 so the shaded ones indicate where there would be a slight decrease over the Current A proposal. The Current B plan employees who now enjoy 120 hours, 144 hours, and 168 hours, will maintain that. There would not be any loss for the employees hired after 1993. Towards the bottom of the chad at the dark-shaded area shows where the benefit comes in. In the Current B plan, at the 15th year, they would be getting 216 hours - under the new proposal they would go up to 240 hours. It is a blended proposal and does give benefits towards the end. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if everyone on the A program had been there 10 years and Deputy Chief Ness responded in the affirmative. It appeared that the blended proposal dropped three days from the Current A shift before the 9th year. Mr. Jute stated that this would be three days total. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that it would be three days less over his career and it would all come out before year 8. The blended proposal actually represented a plus over your career plus ten additional days over the Current B. Mr. Keeler agreed. Deputy Chief Ness stated that as far as retaining or hiring people based on the current system, he did not think this was going to be an issue as far as the new plan was concerned. It was certainly a benefit towards the end of their career. Mr. Garnsey stated that an important point from their perspective was not to take time away from people who currently have the benefit. Mr. Jute addressed the 40-hour shift employee proposal. Mr. Garnsey stated it seemed to show that it was less than the Current A but more than the current B in most cases. Mr. Hawkins stated that there were not that many people in the Department that would be affected and they were, technically, salaried. Mr. Jute stated that they were not salaried. There was some confusion about the numbers on the 40-hour shift chart and Chief Bingham was called to come to the meeting to clarify them. Chief Bingham gave an example of a 48-hour employee. In years 1 and 2 they would earn 144 hours. In making a fair comparison between 48 hour and 40-hour employees, the simplest way to do that is to divide 40 by 48 and come up with 8.3356. The number in parentheses represents 5/6 of what a 48 hour employee would make; therefore, if employee A is on 48 hours and has that amount of time and employee B is on 40 hours and has that amount of time, proportionate to their hours of work, they are earning the same vacation hours. They had finally been able to bring some qualified people from 48 hours to 40 hours and these people look for similarity in benefits. 144 hours to a 48-hour employee equates to 120 hours for a 40-hour employee. There were areas where the numbers were not divisible by 8 (8 hours a day), so they rounded down to 8 hours. In that particular case in the 1-2 area, if there isn't a rounding down to something divisible by eight, there is a fairly significant reduction in the number of hours compared to the existing Current Plan A. Actually, it is the same as the existing Current Plan B. Chief Bingham continued that if they were going to entertain any kind of a blended formula, they could not just bring in Plan A and say "this is our new rate." There had to be some concession, 2 Meeting Minutes IAFF Local 1891 Contract Negotiation Meeting with The City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2002 some give and take. What they were able to accomplish using this proposal was some give and take, using some of Plan A and some of Plan B. It does not adversely affect any existing employee. Using 40-hour employee Barkley Garnsey as an example, anything that occurs in years 1-2 or 3-4 is not going to affect him because he is beyond that point. On the other hand, someone coming on the 40-hour shift would receive less than Current Plan A, but would get more than Plan B. This, to him, was what blending was all about. The shaded areas represent those areas where the proposal is less than the Current Plan A. Everything else remains the same. Mr. Garnsey stated that the one Randy Jute had questioned - from 120 hours down to 96 hours - may have been an oversight. In the contract language it was at 120 hours. Chief Bingham stated that he did not change it in the contract language and suggested that the chart was correct. He stated that he had been asked to make a recommendation based on a blended rate and that the individual figures might need a little more adjustment. First, they had to take a look at the concept to see if it accomplished what the City had tried to do. He responded to Mr. Jute's earlier question that on the 120 to 96 one, he was looking for some concessions in that area. Again, it was not going to adversely affect anyone currently in the position. The person that comes in under Current Plan B is the same as that so there would be no change in expectation either. Either the schedule has to change or the chart has to change, in that one category, but everything else was conceptually accurate. Mr. Garnsey thought the schedule needed to be changed because the number of hours was off in the years range. The first one would be from 0-2 and then 2-4. Chief Bingham stated that either that change needed to take place or the hours could be changed. In trying to come up with some type of scheme that would provide a blended rate and show some concession on the part of the Union in order to get to the blended rate, the chart had been reworked no less than a dozen times in the last 24 hours. Chief Bingham asked Randy Jute if this had answered his question and Mr. Jute said that it did. Carol Cheek stated that there were two people who were on 40 hours and 80 people on 48 hours and that this change would hardly apply to anybody and probably never would. By the time someone switched from 48 to 40, they would probably have been with the City a long time. Chief Bingham stated that if they wanted to be successful in recruiting qualified people to come from shift to days, the benefits had to be somewhat comparable. Mr. Jute agreed. Chief Bingham said they try to accommodate people as best as they could in regard to the overtime that they would no longer receive. To ask someone to come from a guaranteed position on shift to take two weeks less vacation would make or break the decision for some people. At certain points they were going to need people on staff and they wanted to make the 48-hour shift to 40- hour days decision more attractive. Mr. Jute asked Chief Bingham about Section 2 of the Vacation Schedule and the transition from a calendar to a fiscal year and whether he had any problem with that transition language. Chief Bingham thought this had been discussed at the Labor Management meeting and Mr. Jute said that was correct. They did not think there was any problem but Mr. Hawkins had asked that and while the Chief was in the room, they wanted to ask about it. They discussed the difference in the language. Mr. Kinser asked if Chief Bingham had any problem with the intent of the Article. Meeting Minutes IAFF Local 1891 Contract Negotiation Meeting with The City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2002 Chief Bingham had no problem with the intent of the Article but thought that the transition language would be out of the contract by the following year. Various items on the 40-Hour Schedule were discussed and Chief Bingham stated that he would rework this schedule and bring it back. Mr. Jute stated that they would review the revised schedule and get back to the City on it but they had no major issues with the proposed blended schedule and it looked as though they could move ahead with this item. Article 14, Wages Mr. Hawkins inquired whether the Union had a chance to do some further work on the wage proposal. Mr. Garnsey stated that he had given the City a Sample Pay Plan and some comparisons and the City said they had not really worked with the comparisons yet. Mr. Hawkins stated they were still working on this item. Mr. Jute remarked that all parties had agreed in past negotiations to the cities that would be used for the comparisons. All they asked was that the City use the comparisons they had agreed to use. He acknowledged the numbers that they had received from the City but stated that they wanted to base their numbers on the comparisons. He stated that competitive was a funny word for average and they asked to be average. They had already given the City the paperwork on the comparison cities. This time, to help move things along, they gave the City a copy of the Wage Article from each comparison city's contract: Deerfield Beach, Boca Raton, Pembroke Pines, Delray Beach, West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, and Pompano Beach. This, combined with the information they had already given to the City, should be all that the City needed. He asked that the City use the information and look at their proposals, finding a middle of the road, and go from there. Mr. Hawkins said that was fine and they were doing just that. They were in the process of developing a one-page spread sheet with the comparable numbers and would insert their proposal into the matrix to see where they were. Mr. Hawkins gave the collection of Wage Articles to Mary Munro from Finance and Chief Bingham, who would be participating in the preparation of the actual spreadsheet of wage comparisons. Mr. Hawkins stated that the City had to determine where it wanted to be competitively, using the comparisons. Mr. Jute just did not want them to be on the bottom and Mr. Hawkins stated that the City did not want to be on the bottom either so the parties were agreed on that. Mr. Hawkins stated that it would boil down to what the City could afford. They might have to be lower than one or several other cities and knew they would not be able to be on top. They wanted to get to where they were definitely competitive, specifically in Palm Beach County, and maybe even strongly competitive with some of the Broward County cities. Mr. Hawkins reiterated that the percentage increases they had provided previously would give them an idea of what the City could afford. There could be a gap between where the City wanted to be and what it could afford but the comparison had to be done first before this could be discussed. 4 Meeting Minutes IAFF Local 1891 Contract Negotiation Meeting with The City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2002 Mr. Jute stated that if they were to follow what they had and the numbers in the comparisons, Boynton Beach would definitely be on the bottom or even below the bottom. Deputy Chief Ness asked if the Wage Articles from the other cities had longevity topouts. Mr. Jute replied that some did and some did not. Deputy Chief Ness thought that the problem from the Union's perspective was not so much the wages as the time in grade required to get to the maximum. Mr. Garnsey stated that when Boynton Beach was compared to the other departments in the area, the other departments were actually getting to their max in a reasonable period of time. In Boynton Beach, the max was not reached until a person was ready to retire. Ms. Cheek responded that their ranges kept moving. Mr. Kinser stated that the other department's ranges were higher than at Boynton and some of them move two times a year. They had added longevity in there to cover that specific issue. The bottom line was that it could take 21 or 22 years for a person to max out and based on a little research they had done, some might not max out until 25 years. And, the City was talking about an additional ten years. Mr. Hawkins stated that this was going to be shown - how long it took in Boynton Beach to top out. He heard what they were saying but thought that the numbers would be interesting. The City wanted to bring the issue back for discussion at the next meeting. Discrimination, Article 2 Mr. Hawkins stated that the City Attorney preferred that this Article be silent since the Federal laws would supersede anything that could be said in it. It was felt that the Article could be eliminated entirely or if the Union wished to leave it in, they could just say, "Refer to Federal laws." Mr. Jute thought that both attorneys were on the same wavelength. They would chat with him and this might be fine. Group Insurance, Article 12 Mr. Hawkins suggested that they work with the core issue of salary increases before they dealt with this Article. He thought that to address them at the same time would tend to muddy the issues. Mr. Jute was not against this. Mr. Kinser asked Mr. Hawkins if he had reviewed their proposal on insurance. Mr. Hawkins replied that he had but wished to address it as a separate item. Mr. Keller asked if the City planned to open up bids for health insurance. Mr. Hawkins did not think it would be done this year but in 2003-4, some very different ideas were under consideration, due to the anticipated doubling of health care costs over the next two years. Mr. Hawkins stated that there were not that many companies who would bid on health insurance. They had heard from other cities that had made a change that they got good deals with the new provider going in, but faced huge increases in the third year. 5 Meeting Minutes IAFF Local 1891 Contract Negotiation Meeting with The City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2002 Mr. Garnsey stated that a lot of people were finding that they could get insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield for less money. Ms. Cheek commented that children's coverage was usually cheaper on a private policy. Mr. Kinser stated that a time might come when they pulled away from the insurance that the City provides. They have been conducting preliminary research with three or four other Locals in Palm Beach County and discussing the idea of departments joining together to maintain that membership. Hialeah, Boca Raton, Delray Beach, and West Palm have had a well-established insurance program for years. Mr. Hawkins commented that he understood that and that was the same premise on which the City was basing its discussions. Mr. Garnsey asked what the group insurance was going to cost the City, including the 9.1% increase. Ms. Cheek stated that it would cost several million dollars but did not recall the total budget. Mr. Hawkins stated that the City would get back to the Union on this. Mr. Hawkins advised that he had just been appointed to a stakeholder advisory committee that was set up to give feedback to the industry. The medical profession is concerned about stakeholder impact because if people do not go to the doctors, the doctors will not survive. If they go to the doctors and receive services but do not pay, that would be another problem. Being on this committee should give Mr. Hawkins insight on the global perspective about this issue. The City was reaching a point where it had to adjust its whole thinking on expenses because they had reached a peak in the generation of revenue. The City was 85% built out so whatever building comes along in the next three to four years would be "it." Status Mr. Jute stated that the wage issue was in the City's hands to review and come back with a proposal. Mr. Hawkins agreed and said this would come back in writing for review at the next meeting. Mr. Hawkins stated that insurance would be discussed after wages, followed by hours of work. The vacancies and promotions would be held up until after wages since it had pay for the Lieutenants. The City planned to move on the Lieutenants and Captains issue, but did not know just how it was going to be done yet. Mr. Hawkins indicated that with the Vacation Article, the numbers would be straightened out and the Union would review them. The Discrimination Article is in Mr. Jute's hands for review and whether or not to discard. Mr. Jute stated that once wages were taken care of, they could move ahead more rapidly. Mr. Hawkins asked that the Union allow the City to finish the wage comparison and then get back with them to schedule the next meeting. The meeting was tentatively set for September 24, depending upon the City getting the wage comparison completed. 6 Meeting Minutes IAFF Local 1891 Contract Negotiation Meeting with The City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida September 12, 2002 Adjournment Since there was no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (one tape) With attachments: Cc: Vacation Schedule Rosemarie Lamanna, Legal Department Chief Bill Bingham (09/13/O2) 7 PROPOSAL YEAR 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12- 13 13 - 14 14- 15 VACATION SCHEDULE (48-hour shift employees) PROPOSAL (01) CURRENT "A" CURRENT "B" SHIFTS HOURS yEAR SHIFTS HOURS YEAR SHIFTS HOURS YEAR SHIFT HOUR 5 · ~ 120 0-t! 5 120 '~ 0-1~ ': 6 144 '0- 1 5 120 6 144 1 - 2 5 120 1 - 2 6 144 1 - 2 6 144 6 144 2 - 3 5 120 2 - 3 6 144 2 - 3 6 144 6 I44 ~'3 -4 5 120 7 168 3'4' 6 144 7 168 4 - 5 6 144 4 - 5 7 168 4 - 5 7 168 7 I68 5 - 6 6 144 5 - 6 7 168 5 - 6 7 168 7 168 6- 7 6 144 6 - 7 7 168 6 - 7 7 168 7 168 7-8 7 168 ii 7.~8·:,~,, :~8 192 '7-8 7 168 8 192 8 - 9 7 168 8 - 9 8 192 8 -9 7 168 8 192 9 - 10 7 168 9 - 10 8 192 9 - 10 8 192 8 192 10-11 7 168 10-11 8 192 10-11 8 192 9 216 I1 - 12 8 192 11- 12 9 216 11 - 12 8 192 9 216 12 - 13 8 192 12 - 13 9 216 12 - 13 8 192 9 216 13 - 14 9 216 13 - 14 9 216 13 - 14 8 192 9 216 14 - 15 9 216 14-15 9 216 14 -15 9 216 15 16 10 ~,.~ 240 ...... !5' ~i'6 '9 'i.,216 ',i~.~,:,,.I5-I~.,:~:,. !0' ~ ~,=,~-.,~.~ · 240 ~. ~:~ !9-20 9 "-.2 ~,~ ':' ?~ · :~.g! ~ :~.~:.20~:~:::~%10 240 VACATION SCHEDULE (40-hour shift employees) PROPOSAL YEAR SHIFTS HOURS 0- 1 12 96 (100) 1 - 2. 12 96 (120) 2-3 15 120 2-3 3.'- 4 15 120 3 - 4 4- 5 I5 120 4- 5 -' 5-6 ,~ 17. 136 (I40) 5-6 6 - 7 17 136 (140) 6- 7 7-8 17 136 (140) 7-8 8 - 9 20 136 (140) 8 -'9 9- 10 20 136 (140) 9- 10 10 - 11 20 136 (140) 10- 11 11- 12 22 176 (180) 11- 12 12- 13 22 176 (180) 12- 13 13- 14 22 176 (180) 13- 14 14- 15 22 176 (180) 14- 15 15 - 16 24 192 (200) 15 - 16 16- 17 24 192 (200) 16- 17 17- 18 24 192 (200) 17- 18 -18- 19 24 192 (200) 18- 19 19 - 20 24 192 (200) 19 - 20 20+ 25 192 (200) 20 + CURRENT "A" YEAR SHIFTS ,.HOURS 0- 1 12 96 1 - 2 15 '120 0-1 · 1-2 15 120 2 - 3 16 :: ~''~ '-128 ~,- 3-4 17' 17," 'i3'6~ ...... i~.'~i~ 4- 5 144 .. ~ 5-6 .!9 .,, J.~i' !52 .... :.:: : 6'- 7 20 160. 7-8 2i i~68 8-9 22 176 9- 10 22 .... 176 ......... 10- 11 22 176 11 - 12 22 176 12- 13 22 176 13- 14 22 176 14- 15 24 192 15- 16 24 192 16- 17 24 192 17- 18 24 192 18- 19 24 192 19 - 20 25 ' 200 20+ CURRENT "B" YEAR SHIFT _HOURS 6 48 ' 12 96 12 96 I2 96 12 96 15 120 15 120 15 120 I5 120 15 120 17 136 17 136 17 136 17 136 17 136 17 136 17 136 17 136 17 136 17 136 20 160 ARTICLE 19 VACATION Section 1 (-A-)The following plans ~ outlines the vacation leave policy for both the 40-hour employees and the Fire Rescue Department shift employees. Vacations will be picked on a seniority basis and can be taken in increments of 12 or 24 hours, one shift at a time. FULL-TIME/NON-SHIFT EMPLOYEES ,, ~ ............. Each em oyee shall, at the end of each year thereafter be credited with additional vacation days (accumulated in hours) for each full year of continuous se~ice as outlined in the cha~ below. The number of days/hours credited per year will not increase after the 21st year of se~ice unless the included cha~ is amended. Employees on initial one-year probation are not eligible to take vacation for the first six months. Vacation may be acc~ed in accordance with the following schedule. 37 2002-2005 IAFF CITY Vacation Accrual Policy (Based on 40 hour work week) (Note: New schedule: Refer to attachment for comparison.) Years of Service Vacation Da_.a_y.A Vacation Hours 0- 1 12 I -4 15 1~. 4-8 17 16R 8-11 20 192 11-15 22 216 15 + 25 240 FULL-TIME/SHIFT EMPLOYEES ........ Rescue n,.,-,..,.,.....+ ..~,.,, .... ;'"' "'" e"";,."~,-..+ ,-~ ..iv em ..,iQ ~ .... /~'~) hours) per >'ca~ ..... +;,~n E I=;"C mC~'~" 'C .......... 2ch ..................... ..... ~,'C~ rs ,-',',,-,+;,-,, ,,-,, ,,-, · .............. SC'""CC Tho n,,r~K~, n~ ~i~.~/kn,,r~ Vacation Accrual Policy (Based on 48 hour work w~ek) (Note: New schedule: Refer to attachment for comparison.) Years of Service 0-1 -- Shift Da s 24 hours Vacation Hours 5 120 1-4 6 144 4-8 7 168 8-11 8 192 11-15 9 216 15 + 10 240 38 2002-2005 IAFF CITY In computing vacation leave earned, no increments will accrue for any pay week which includes three or more days of leave of absence without pay. For uniformed members of the Fire Rescue Department no increments will accrue for any three week pay period which includes four or more days of leave of absence without pay, or the appropriate percentage of the pay period. Employees may accrue vacation leave to a maximum of the leave earned in the most recent two employment years, and, in addition, will include hours earned as referenced in Article 17, Sick Leave, Section 3 ............ C~c ................... .' ........ 39 2002-2005 IAFF CITY 6 12 95 15 17 '!,3~ 20 ! Year 2 years but !ecs than 5 5 years but !ccc than !0 Vacat!on Acc,"ual Policy 4 96 5 !20 6 ~0 :,'cars b'--'t !ecs than 15 7 !~ !5 years and :flor 8 ! 92 '" ,-, .......... c3rncd in thc 4O 2002-2005 IAFF CITY ]~'""" '"~' ~" "'"" '"':::l'~'~"''"'": " ' "" I"' " '1"' "' ~' "'"" '"'''"'"'--'"""'"l'1::! "'" ~..~ -, , ..... will ........· . .. -. '"3X'""'..'..";q . . ~, ....... w ~ .... '" ~'~ Section 2. Effective 01/01/2003, the policy and procedure for yearly selectinq vacation time will chanqe from a calendar year to a fiscal year. For a one-time only circumstance, vacation selections will be made from January 1, 2003 throu.qh September 30, 2003. Subsequently, followin.q this transition period, tho followin.q procedure and new time period for schedulinq vacation choices will bn formatted to a fiscal year- October 1st throuqh September 30"~. In order to provide a smooth transition 'from calendar year to fiscal year, employees will be given additional time to use their accrued leave without penalty. Those employees who are over their two (2) year maximum on D~:~mbcr 3!, 2000 September 30, 2003 may carry the overage into the year 2004 without loss of 2002-2005 IAFF CITY time. Employees who are still over their maximum on September 30, 20044_ will forfeit the number of hours accrued over the two (2) year maximum. Section 3. For special "one time" kind of events, employees will be allowed to accumulate more than two years earned accrued vacation with the prior approval of the Chief. Such approval must be received at a time pdor to the two (2) year maximum accrual that is equal to the extra accrual that is requested. Maximum accrual will be limited to three (3) years earned vacation. Example: An employee may accrue 12 shift days in two years. The employee requests two additional days beyond the maximum. The employee must submit his/her request for the two additional days four months prior to his/her 12-shift day maximum for approval to extend the 12 days to 14. Section 4. Personnel requesting vacation time on the same day will not be approved if the issuing of the vacation time results in call back. 42 2002-2005 IAFF CITY ~,~,-.+;,-,,., .~ ~ m~0 r-;~, .-,,.,~ ~h~ ~ ~'";'""' '""'""'" +''' "~' op~r, S~ctio~ '~ /~ '";*~;"' Seet. iet:l-~. :~'-*;,,,~ ~0/0q/200q, Tha mc"imum ,,.,,...,,i,.,,., ..,.,,..,.,, ,; .... ;m,.;., :":ill · .,~,.~,,.. /~..,,~.j, ~..v /.~j .rye.,, ,, -~,,, ,.,,,, ,-,v~.,,~..,.~,/~ ,, ' ' ~-',%r ,.~,,,v,~,,~ Section 2. Effective 01/01/2003, the policy and procedure for yearly selectin.q vacation time will chanqe from a calendar year to a fiscal year. For a one-time - only circumstance, vacation selections will be made from January 1, 2003 throuqh September 30, 2003. Subsequently, followin.q this transition period, the followin.q procedure and new time period for schedulinq vacation choices will be formatted to a fiscal year - October 1st throu,qh September 30t~. In order to provide a smooth transition 'from calendar year to fiscal year, employees will be given additional time to use their accrued leave without penalty. Those employees who are over their two (2) year maximum on Da:embar 3!, 2000 September 30, 2003 may carry the overage into the year 2004 without loss of 41 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 5 IAFF CITY time. Employees who are still over their maximum on September 30, 200-1-4_ will forfeit the number of hours accrued over the two (2) year maximum. Section 3. For special "one time" kind of events, employees will be allowed to accumulate more than two years earned accrued vacation with the pdor approval of the Chief. Such approval must be received at a time prior to the two (2) year maximum accrual that is equal to the extra accrual that is requested. Maximum accrual will be limited to three (3) years earned vacation. Example: An employee may accrue 12 shift days in two years. The employee requests two additional days beyond the maximum. The employee must submit his/her request for the two additional days four months prior to his/her 12-shift day maximum for approval to extend the 12 days to 14. Section 4. Personnel requesting vacation time on the same day will not be approved if the issuing of the vacation time results in call back. 42 2002-2005 IAFF CITY