Minutes 06-27-03DATE:
LOCATION:
SUBJECT:
START TIME:
ATTENDEES:
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING
i0
END lIME:
NAME TITLE PHONE#
IAFF Local 1891
6/27/01
Meeting on reopener items in contract
Attending:
For IAFF
For the City:
Matt Keeler Secretary x6606
Barkley Gamsey Business Agent x6327
Dean Kinser Vice President x6340
Randy Jute President x6341
Michael Fitzpatrick Treasurer x6626
Wilfred Hawkins Asst. City Mgr. X6012
Mary Munro Budget Coordinator x6314
David Liu Deputy Fire Chief x6339
Carol Cheek HR Coordinator x6278
Meeting started at 10:10 a.m. Both the union and the City recorded the meeting.
Meeting ended at 11:50 a.m.
Union asked the City to go over its thoughts on each of the items being discussed.
Dru.q Testin.q
Hawkins said the contract already has a general support of the drug free workplace,
then we get to the random testing which is one of the ways to give the policy some
credence. Our suggested wording is straightforward that due to the safety sensitive
nature of the work, the public wants to know that the people they depend on to save
their lives are free from potential drug problems.
The proposed article calls for no more than 10 bargaining unit members per year would
have a random test, which the City would pay for. The selection of the names are
handled by an outside company.
The union asked who else had this in their contracts - the police do. (plus DOT required
blue collar).
The union feels that random testing is unnecessary si.nce they feel they have not had
problems and they are concerned about testing procedures. There was a long
discussion about random testing - the union also feels they are professional and that
random testing violates their civil rights.
The union asked about how it is going in the police department. (The union was later
provided with the random testing articles from each of the 3 police contracts).
Hawkins repeated that public perception is important and that this provides a sense of
security, that the department's willingness to do this speaks well to the public. Although
the tire-rescue department currently enjoys a good reputation, it would only take one
incident in this area to ruin it. A policy would be extra insurance. The union does not see
any connection between the test in their annual physical and a random test. They feel
the City is asking them to do something that they are not expecting from all other
employees.
Chief Liu said they train their supervisors to recognize drug problems and they have
terminated two employees in the past.
The union asked if a person is immediately terminated or is there a second chance.
Yes. The union thinks the policy and procedure is full of holes and see no reason why
they should "give up their civil rights" so the City can have a random testing program.
Hawkins said this was put on the table for discussion and can be worked on.
The union doesn't want to sign off on anything without knowing all the ramifications.
Cheek explained the current procedure. Hawkins said we could agree to go to a second
lab for testing the second sample. Caution - the chain of custody must be preserved.
Why does the City want this so much? For the good of the organization.
The union is concerned that a random test would show up in the personnel file. Cheek
explained that all medical records including drug tests and psych tests are not in the
personnel file - they are in a separate medical file and are not public records.
The union says when the general employees have to, they will consider it. Hawkins
asked if they would be willing to help develop the overall policy. First said no, then yes if
we could prove is was good for the good of the organization. They still think this says
the City doesn't trust them.
Hawkins suggested again that if this particular wording is problematic, come up with
some other. Jute said he doesn't think they would discuss it until at the very least "the
people on the other side of the table" have to. Fitzpatrick said that for himself, if there
was enough incentive involved, he would "give up his civil rights"- he doesn't have
anything to hide.
HEALTH - 1% to base
Hawkins said that adding it to base is not consistent with what we did for others. If we
were to compare the 1% lump sum for others and the extra ~% the IAFF negotiated the
union is probably still ahead. We are not going to get .anywhere if they continue to want
1% to base.
The union said they want to go through one by one, for example if they got 1% lump
sum they would want the vacation and the rookie pay, etc. Hawkins said the health
subsidy was not part of the to-be-opened items in the contract. Jute said they filed for it.
Hawkins said he had not seen it. Jute had a copy of 2 letters, but there were no
signatures and no date on one. He said the City Manager knows. Hawkins will ask the
City Manager.
There was further discussion about what could be included and when (when agreed to
by both parties).
Hawkins said agreements will also depend on the budget- if we do not have anything is
this year's budget, we have no choice but to delay the discussion. The union suggested
that there were savings from the early retirees program. Munro reminded everyone that
savings from eady retirement were to be used for CIP only. Hawkins said he would
come back with an answer about the fiscal situation. He will also check with the City
Manager and City Attorney about the two issues not specifically addressed in the
contract to be opened since the letters were not given to him..
VACATION
Union got a copy of the proposed blended plan. Chief Liu explain the differences and
showed that the way it is currently being administered is actually more liberal than the
way it is stated in the contrect. The blended plan is trying to bring the two plans more
toward the middle. The union thinks they will lose 25 days - so the plan is not neutrel, it
is regressive. The union said they are not interested in anyone having to give up any
vacation time. They only want to have the pre-1993 schedule. The union said the City
would "pocket the difference" in the vacation days. Chief Liu reminded them that their
argument that vacation time was not a real cost did not then allow them to say the City
would be able to pocket any money. Any real costs come at termination or retirement.
The union feels everyone deserves the higher level plan because of comparables. They
said the City Manager got a 33% increase in his vacation. They understand he does a
lot of things in off hours for the City; however they feel they do the same thing. If
Authorized Leave is not available from the department, they take vacation to go to
schools and conventions that make them more valuable to the City. There was
discussion from the union about the City had a long time to get ready to fund these
additional days. Munro reminded that we are now required to book any unused vacation
time as a liability at the end of each fiscal year. The union feels that morale would be
worse if any days were taken away from the longer service guys. They asked if there
was any information on how much had been saved since the plan was decreased in
1993. Hawkins said it would be difficult to be specific since there were many other items
that affected it (example: number of employees, tax rate roll-back, etc.). Further
discussion about how to calculate the amount, but no decision reached.
The union feels that we are going backward, that City's Proposals for issues on the table
are a take-away from them. They think the vacation plan is totally deficient. They
continued to bring up that the paramedics (especially the longer service employees) do
not get as much money as they got under the old 15%. plan.
Hawkins said he would sit down with Finance and the Chief to look at the items again.
These are departures for discussion. We do not want to get bogged down.
City will look at health subsidy issue (if formal request for reopener can be confirmed).
Union will look at random drug testing. Munro asked if giving new people 2 additional
vacation days, would the restriction on scheduling be a problem. They say no.
Next meeting: Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 9:00 a.m.