Minutes 10-09-03 [41'NUTES OF THE COLLECTI'VE BARGAI'NI'NG SESSI'ON BETWEEN
THE NATI'ONAL CONFERENCE OF FI'REt4EN & OI'LERS~ WHI'TE COLLAR
WORKERS, AND THE CI'TY OF BOYNTON BEACH, HELD ON THURSDAY,
OCTOBER 9, 2003 AT 9:30 A.M. 1'N THE HUF,IAN RESOURCES CONFERENCE
ROOt4, CI'TY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORI'DA
Present
For NCF&O
Sharon Munley, President, Local 1227
Debbie Lytle, Chief Steward, Utilities
Michael Ricard, Steward, Building Division
For the City:
Wilfred Hawkins, Assistant City Manager
Arthur Lee, Director of Human Resources
Mr. Hawkins opened the meeting at 10:02 a.m. and a sign-up sheet was passed
around. A copy of the updated matrix/summary of activity was distributed to the
participants.
Approval of t4inutes of the October 2, 2003 F4eeting
Ms. Munley noted that on page 2, the phrase "The Union wanted to retain the right to
strike" should be replaced with, "The Union wished to retain the Strike Article."
Ms. Munley also wanted assurance that the minutes would not represent the contract
and that the actual agreement was represented by the articles on which mutual TiA.
was reached. Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Lee agreed that this was the case. Ms. Munley
wished to clarify on page 8 that the Union had not agreed to a specific number of
stewards or the number of persons who could participate at the bargaining table yet.
Mr. Hawkins stated that the minutes were very detailed and very helpful as a tool to
remember what was said at the meetings.
t-latrix of Previous Activity/Status
Mr, Hawkins stated that Mr. Lee had reorganized the articles to more closely represent
the current contract and hoped that this would be helpful. Mr. Hawkins asked the
Union to double check that the T.A.'d articles were correct and Ms. Munley indicated
that they were.
Mr. Hawkins offered a list of articles on which the City believed agreement could be
reached without too much discussion as follows:
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Union Representation
Progressive Discipline/Disciplinary Procedures
Comp Time
Basic Work Week and Overtime
Savings Clause
Collective Bargaining
Unauthorized Absence
Workman's Comp
Military Leave
Sick Leave
Substance Abuse
Union Representation
IVlr. Hawkins stated that the City could agree to have four white-collar negotiators at the
bargaining table. Mr. Lee stated that the Union had spoken of wanting to have more
than the two stewards they had at present.
Ms. Munley stated that she believed the City did not have a big problem with the
number of blue-collar representatives at the table if certain changes were made.
Assuming she was correct in that assumption, and assuming they could do something
with the Union Time Pool right now, the Union would like to see 100 hours per year for
Union activity since it was 1/2 of what the blue collar had. The blue collar is twice as big
as the white-collar unit. The hours would be supplied by the Union Time Pool and a
50% match from the City. Mr. Ricard stated that the Union wanted to wait on this
article until they saw what happened during the Wage article discussions. They want to
get something if they were going to donate time. Ms. Munley verified with the stewards
that they were not against the Union Time Pool theory.
Ms. Lytle verified that: 1) the City was willing to delete the reference to City Manager in
Section 2 and replace it with Department Head, 2) Non-employee officials sentence will
be deleted, 3) /arbitration will follow the word grievance in B.1, and 4) The City's
reference to Section 4 should be changed to Section 3.
The Union is requesting 100 hours for Union activities per year in Section 3, and 20
days per year of leave for conferences, and so forth in Section 5. Ms. Munley
commented that the 20 days in the current contract had never been a problem, and if it
were reduced to 10, it would be perceived as a loss by the Union membership. The
Union also requested that the Time-Out Slip, section 6, be put in the Union Time Pool
article.
The City was amenable to moving the Time Out Slip section to the Union Time Pool
article.
2
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Union Time Pool
Msi Munley said that the Union Time Pool article should be combined with the Union
Representation article. MFi Hawkins thought this might be a possibility.
Ms. Munley stated that the Union would like this article to read: The employee may
donate from I to 5 hours of vacation, sick leave, or comp time for representative
activities or training. The donations will be deducted from the employee's appropriate
leave bank once each year in .lanuary during each year of the agreementi The City will
match the number of Union Time Pool hours at a rate of 50% of the total number of
hours each year based on the number of hours accumulated by the Union.
The Union wants to collect the hours at th~ time of contract ratification on a one-time
basis but Ms. Munley did not see this in the article. Mr. Hawkins noticed that also. Ms.
Munley proposed that the Union would collect Union Time Pool hours from its members
during the ratification of this agreement.
Mr. Lee noted that this article had been included in the Representation article formerly,
but the City had extracted it and it is now a standalone article. Ms. Lytle stated that
they had agreed on that - changing the language to match the Union Representation
with 4 stewards instead of 2. Ms. Munley said they were going to say in the second
paragraph, "no more than four may participate", and strike section 3. The City agreed
with eliminating section 3, which has to do with the timing of the bargaining sessions.
Ms. Munley asked the City if the City would be presenting a Wage proposal and the
response was that they would not at present. Ms. Munley stated that if the Union had
to present a less than satisfactory Wage package, the Union members would not be
amenable to donating time.
Ms. Munley felt that these two articles, Union representation and the Time Pool, were
almost finished, pending the Wage discussions.
Mr. Hawkins stated that there had been some discussion previously about what was
going to happen to unused time. Mr. Hawkins had stated that time would not be rolled
over from year to year and wanted to start fresh each year.
Ms. Munley suggested rolling it over and when the next contract is negotiated, there
might not be a need to collect from 1 to 5 hours. In Palm Beach Gardens, everyone
donated and it was way too much time. This year they reduced the number of hours
that could be donated to 1 hour. Ms. Munley wanted to roll it over and determine at the
time of the bargaining for the next contract whether it would be appropriate to roll the
time over or not. She stated that people would not want to believe that the time they
donated was going to be "put in the garbage" if not used.
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Mr. Hawkins stated that he could agree with a rollover if there were a contract of more
than one year in duration. He wanted to reserve the discussion on the rollover until the
length of the current contract was determined.
At 10:25 there was a caucus. At 10:55 the barga/n/ng sess/on resumed.
Ms. Munley gave a status report, saying that the Union Representation, Time Pool, and
Collective Bargaining articles were really close but the Union preferred to hold off until
the negotiations were down to the wire.
The Union expressed readiness to give T.A. to Savings, Substance Abuse, and
Personnel Files. The Union was almost ready to T.A. on Unauthorized Absence from
Work.
Ms. Munley and Mr. Hawkins gave T.A. to Savings, Substance Abuse, and Personnel
Files.
Unauthorized Absence from Work
The Union wished to replace the City's wording to "absence from work without proper
notice." A discussion ensued on this topic. The City's position was that this kind of
situation constituted voluntary resignation or job abandonment. Ms. Munley felt that
somebody might be in a car wreck or a coma and not be able to call in or have
someone else call in for them. All parties seemed to agree that there might be
mitigating circumstances surrounding this issue. It was also agreed that either the City
Manager or the H.R. Director should make a determination about whether or not the
employee had just cause to be absent from work without notice, l~f such determination
were to be made in favor of the employee, his or her job could be reinstated. IVls.
IVlunley was in agreement that just cause would be some extraordinary impediment that
would cause that worker not to call in or have someone else call in for him or her. Both
parties will work on mutually satisfactory wording for this article so that T.A. can be
given to this article.
Basic Work Week and Overtime - Comp Time
Ms. Munley stated that in the Blue Collar unit, the Comp Time issue was moved to its
own article and instead of 40 hours, was changed to 60 hours. :If the City agreed to
this, they could probably T.A. on this article as well.
Military Leave
Ms. Munley asked whether there would be a reference to the City's Administrative Policy
Manual (APM), and Mr. Lee responded in the affirmative. The parties agreed that a
4
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Section 3 would be added to this article as follows: "The City agrees to
bargaining unit members those benefits included in APM No. 06-06-06.
gave T.A. to this article."
provide to
Each party
Mr. Lee gave Ms. Munley a copy of APM 06-06-06.
Wages
Ms. IVlunley asked again about when the City planned to present a Wage proposal. IVlr.
Hawkins responded that this would happen sooner rather than later and that the City
wanted to get some of the other articles taken care of first.
Workers Compensation
Ms. IVlunley did not want to accept this article because it did not include all the items
that were in the current contract, such as light duty. She felt that several things had
been negotiated that were not included in the law. She preferred to keep this item in
the Sick Leave article where it is at present and to stay with the Union's language.
Mr. Hawkins stated that he needed to double check to make certain that the language
in the Union's version was in accordance with the current law. He referred to the third
paragraph from the bottom in the current Sick Leave article where it speaks of the
City's supplemental benefit being cancelled. He stated that the City actually tended to
be more liberal about this. He was concerned about some of the language in the
Union's version of Sick Leave and Workers Compensation. Mr. Ricard asked if he was
making a reference to the fraudulent Workers Comp claims and Mr. Hawkins said this
would have to be added.
Mr. Hawkins wants to distinguish between light duty for on and off the job injuries. Ms.
Munley asked if the City had any workers who had been injured and were on light duty
but not receiving Workers Compensation. It was agreed that this sometimes happens in
the case of surgery. In the case of clerical and administrative people, it is easier to find
light duty assignments due to their training and vocation. Mr. Hawkins did not think
there would even be a problem with including off duty injuries.
IVls. Munley did not want to say that the white-collar members who were injured
skydiving, for example, could have light duty but the blue-collar members who had
been injured in the same way could not. Mr. Hawkins stated that while the City tried to
accommodate people who have been injured, the law states that the employer does not
have to accommodate people who have been injured off the job and he did not want to
say in any contract that the City would do this. That is what sick time is for.
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Ms. Munley asked if the language for workers comp was the same in both contracts and
Mr. Hawkins stated that basically, it was the same.
Mr. Hawkins was considering language like: "The City is not liable to provide light duty
work for off-the-job injuries." Ms. Munley suggested that more positively, the language
could be: "The City may provide light duty situations when light duty work is available
for off-duty injuries."
Mr. Hawkins will speak with the City attorney about clarifying this issue.
Grievance Procedures
Ms. Munley said that when she went through the City's proposal, the Grievance article
says Article 10, and she asked if this meant the City wanted to stay with the existing
contract language. She also asked the City to point out the differences in the City's
language and the Union's proposal in the Grievance article. Mr. Hawkins said it was
right out of the PPM.
Both sides previously agreed to the substitution of Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service (FMCS) for Mediation, Inc.
Ns. Munley stated that in Section 5, there was a question about what a class action
grievance was.
The parties agreed to work from the Union's proposal. Ms. Munley stated that the Union
was open to discuss Section 4. The language for class action grievance could be
tweaked. Ms. Munley referred to a section 10, which was determined to be a handout
at an earlier session, which should state: "Terminations shall be grieved beginning at
the City Manager's level." They had that problem with two terminations. The Union did
not know where to go and it did not make sense to go to the first-line supervisors who
had no decision-making ability.
Ms. Munley stated that in order to proceed to arbitration, they had to have a grievance
form to hand to the arbitrator and this was where they were coming from. Mr. Hawkins
understood that.
Ms. Munley said that in Section 4, they said that discipline might be appealed through
the expedited grievance and struck through the part about starting at the various
suspension levels. Mr. Hawkins stated that compared to other jurisdictions, nobody
grieves verbal or written warnings. Ms. Munley stated that when it came to counseling
memos and verbal and written warnings they did not have to go there. When it gets
more severe than a written warning, the Union wanted the option to grieve. She said it
would be a rare event, on a case-by-case basis, that the Union would spend a lot of
6
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
money on a disciplinary notice but they needed to have that option so that people's files
did not get filled up with stuff that would negatively influence an arbitrator. They need
to have the ability to stop a bad supervisor from stacking stuff in a person's file. If it
appeared to the Union as if this were happening, they needed the option to arbitrate.
Ms. IVlunley stated that the District class action grievance language is "more than one
employee at more than one work site." IVls. Munley stated that class actions normally
involved such things as money, holiday pay, or the disparate treatment of a type of
person, and this would normally affect people at more than one work site. The Union
would have to identify the class, saying that the class action was based on "X" kind of
employees, all white collar, all secretaries, etc.
Mr. Hawkins liked the idea of more than one work site but also wanted language in
there about clearly identifying the cause of the action. In the past he had seen some
that were extremely vague such as reason for action, "Wages." This was not
acceptable. Instead, they should say that, for example the employees of X department
were denied, and fill in the blanks with a specific complaint. Mr. Hawkins wanted
enough substance to give the City a clear understanding of the nature of the problem.
IVls. Lytle agreed that they usually just said Violation of Article 7, Section 3, for example.
Ms. Munley stated that a form was needed where a couple of sentences of explanation
could be included. Mr. Hawkins agreed that adding the comment about more than one
work site and identifying the class were acceptable.
In the Appeal Procedure Steps, Ms. Munley suggested saying that should the employee
receive something more substantial than a verbal warning or counseling memo, that it
can be grieved and arbitrated. Mr. Hawkins understood where the Union was coming
from as far as building a file, but to him, written warnings were not grounds for
grievance. He asked IVlr. Lee if there were a procedure about taking written reprimands
out at a certain time - or how long they were "counted." Mr. Lee responded, "yes."
It was evident that more discussion would have to take place on this article on both
sides.
A lunch break was taken at 117tl a.m. and negot/at/ons resumed at 1:3,1p.m.
Travel Policy
Mr. Lee distributed a new travel policy to the Union representatives.
Grievance (continued)
IVlr. Hawkins reviewed the grievance and discipline articles in summary form. He said
that there are now two different procedures for dealing with discipline - one under the
7
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
guise of grievance, and the other under progressive discipline. This is causing some
confusion. Mr. Hawkins suggested that there needed to be a clear-cut disciplinary
procedure all the way through how arbitration would be applied. Maybe that could be
called an appeal process to discipline.
According to Ms. Munley, when the Union states that a grievance is defined as a dispute
or disagreement involving the application or interpretation of this agreement, that is an
all-inclusive statement. They would look at management rights where it says you have
to have just cause to discipline people. Under management rights in the Union's
version, you have to have just cause for discipline and this is what they would hang
their hat on, in most cases.
Ms. Munley suggested removing the strikeouts that the Union put in Section 4 of their
proposal, and inserting instead language like, "Discipline which is more severe than a
counseling memorandum, a written or verbal warning, may be appealed through the
expedited grievance and arbitration process," and make that consistent.
Mr. Hawkins stated that having heard that, he had a radical suggestion to make. He
distributed copies of the entire, current PPM that had been recently adopted by the City
Commission. Ms. Munley stated that this was not for the Union. Mr. Hawkins stated
that if the Union read it, they would see that it covered all the concerns and issues that
were just spoken about regarding appealing disciplinary actions and at what level they
could be appealed or in the case of the Union, grieved. For instance, the PPM now says
that ... pr/or to the effective date of any suspension without pay or term/nat/on, the City
sha//conduct a predetermination hearing. In the old PPM, the language had to do with
only suspensions of three days or more. Mr. Hawkins stated that this showed
movement towards the more liberal side. The PPM also details what extreme
misconduct is, what serious misconduct is, and it talks about exactly what discipline will
be applied under those circumstances. Administrative review is allowed in certain
instances involving non-criminal actions. It talks about what will be done in criminal
investigationsi Tt defines very well the types of disciplinary action, counseling,
reprimands, suspension without pay, and dismissal. Tt talks about for what dismissal
would be applied. Tt talks about the predetermination hearing and on page 37, it talks
about employee appeals. In Section 2 it talks about the way employees may respond
to disciplinary actions of counseling, written reprimand, and suspensions with or
without pay of less than four working days by requesting administrative review by the
Human Resource Director. So, they still can have an appeal outside the department for
disciplinary actions if it is less than four days.
Ms. Munley thought that this (the PPM) was worse than what they had because it says
on page 37, item 3, that "Regular employees have the right to binding arbitration of any
suspensions without pay of, five days or greater, or dismissals .... "Ms. Munley also took
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
issue with the statement that the arbitrator may not modify the discipline (in Section 1,
item 8 on page 38 of the PPM).
Mr. Hawkins stated that from his perspective, the PPM addresses a lot of issues in the
grievance procedure and is in line with what is already in the existing contract. Mr.
Hawkins asked that the Union read the pPIVl section on Grievance and Discipline and
bring up any problems it wished to discuss. He asked that the Union study this and
analyze it because he believes that the PPM version is a more straightforward and less
bureaucratic way of handling discipline.
Mr. Hawkins wanted to extract as much of the "good stuff" from the pPIVl as possible
and insert it in the contract language. He was willing to include PPM language in the
Union's version on points on which both sides could agree. He just asked that the
Union consider this. He stated that there were different options that an employee has, if
he or she understands it or knows about it, when dealing with discipline issues. From
his experience, sometimes people get confused and mix the two options up.
Ms. Munley asked what the two options were. Mr. Hawkins stated that in Section B.4,
the employee could choose to appeal discipline through the expedited grievance and
arbitration process, or by appeal to the Human Resources Director. Then Section 5
comes in, Grievance and Appeal Procedure Steps, and at this point, people get confused
and mixed up when there are appeals to the Human Resources Director. To him, it was
too bureaucratic and could possibly be simplified.
Ms. Munley said that they could probably simplify whom to go to for what, but they
could not do the things it said in the PPM such as the arbitrator not being able to
change the discipline. She was not sure about the difference between "reasonable
cause" and "just cause," but would have to check with their attorney. She thought that
the Union had a fine grievance procedure and although it could be tweaked a little bit,
they did not want to make it worse so that there has to be a five-day suspension before
they can do something to help the employee. Mr. Hawkins did not disagree with this.
Ms. Munley said they wanted to be able to help when it was worse than a counseling
memo, and written or verbal warning if they believe it would be the proper step to take.
it is done, however, on a case-by-case basis (actually arbitrating a disciplinary notice.)
it would depend on what was involved in each case. They did not want to give up their
right to do that.
Ms. Munley stated that in places where the arbitrator could not change the penalty, that
would be like Les Miserables - you steal bread, you go to prison for :L8 years and there
is no "fixing it" when the arbitrator cannot change the penalty. That is the whole issue,
that the penalty and the crime match, she said. She said she did not like it but would
try to find as much as she could to bring over into the contract.
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Mr. Hawkins stated that this Union refers to the PPM for disciplinary matters. All he was
saying was, Section 6 in the PPM provides a continuation of what is already in the
contract. Ms. Munley said they could explain the various counseling things. They had
not had an opportunity to discuss iti Ms. Lytle and Munley looked at page 32 in the
PPM in reference to Performance :Improvement Plans and Ms. Lytle said if a person did
not improve, they were subject to dismissal. Ms. Munley said that the Union has X
number of days to deal with an issue and if they were to add in administrative review,
that would dog up the worksi She personally thought that when some contracts had a
point at which you would meet with your supervisor to try to fix things, that this held up
the solution because things usually do not get fixed at that level. She felt that people
should move on to filing the paper and going to someone who can make a decision.
Mr. Hawkins said that he was trying to streamline the Union's proposal in Section 4B
where it states than an employee may appeal through the expedited grievance and
arbitration process OR by appeal to the Human Resources Director. Ms. Lytle said non-
dues-paying members would go straight to the H.R. Director because the Union would
not represent them. That is why they have to have a choice. Ms. Munley stated that
they could file their own grievance, or hire their own attorney. The Union also has the
right not to spend its members' monies to represent someone who is not a dues-paying
member. Ms. Lytle commented that the Union should not have to use the Union Time
Pool for investigations for non-dues-paying members. This helped Mr. Hawkins
understand the reason for the OR in the Union's proposal.
Ms. Munley felt that if the City wanted to streamline this, they might have expedited
arbitrationsi She said their respective attorneys could select two to five mutually
acceptable local arbitrators who could be available on a rotating basis as issues arose.
They could pick a day and hear three different issues, if such were in the works.
Decisions could be made immediately and there would be no briefs and no spending of
all this money. :It would be the same thing as now only expedited.
Ms. Munley did not want to give up the right to defend somebody when the Union
believes that the deck is being stacked against themi That was their biggest fear,
because the supervisors were not always trained or knowledgeable and sometimes do
not do the right thing. Ms. Lytle commented that favoritism was one issue here. Ms.
Munley stated that the Union had to have some way to address this with the City. She
further commented that in the normal way of doing things, it could take 6 to 8 months
to a year before going to arbitration and that the pre-determined "arbitrator pool" could
swing into action much sooner, saving money for everybody. Having the case(s) heard
on one day by this pool could change the price tag of any given arbitration from $6K
per person to $1K per person, for example.
Ms. Munley stated that this type of arrangement was being used with the flight
attendant's union at American Airlines. A predetermined pool of mutually agreeable
lO
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
arbitrators hear several cases in one day and render decisions. She said that there had
to be a place where they could come to the City and say, "We do not think what you
did was appropriate." Mr. Hawkins indicated that he understood this and did not totally
disagree with it.
Mr. Hawkins stated that the part of the contract that talks about progressive discipline
and the PPM are the same thing except for a few changes that have been pointed out.
Ms. Munley stated that some of it could be incorporated into the discipline, leaving
grievance alone except for streamlining it a bit. Both parties will work on streamlining
the grievance procedure.
Mr. Ricard said that there was a problem with referring to the PPM in a Union contract
because the PPM can be changed at any time. Mr. Hawkins agreed, saying that
everything that was in the progressive discipline portion of the PPM was verbatim from
this section except for recent changes that were approved by the Commission and he
wanted the Union to take a look at what those changes were.
Ms. IVlunley said there were five steps in the City's grievance procedure and that most
of her places had three. That was a place they could streamline. She said if there were
boss #:L who came to give you a discipline, maybe the first step should be at his or her
boss's level. You have a whole lot of layers here. Maybe it would then go to the
department head and the City Manager. There would be three steps to go to. They
could also streamline it by expediting the whole process as described.
Ms. Munley said they could work with this but did not want to give up their rights to
defend someone as mentioned earlier. Mr. Hawkins was not suggesting that they
would but was asking that the parties put their heads together to see how this process
could be streamlined. Mr. Hawkins stated that as he and Ms. Munley had discussed at
the beginning of negotiations, they had to do everything they could to speed up the
disciplinary process for people because it was not fair to have people hanging out there
when it comes to those issues.
Ms. Munley will look at the PPM to see if there were things that could be incorporated
into their contract. Mr. Hawkins said there were only a few changes.
Ms. Munley thought the actual Grievance and Arbitration Process should be stand-alone
articles and Mr. Hawkins agreed.
Mr. Lee stated that if they went with an expedited arbitration process, how would the
Union's preferred arbitrator, FMCS, come into it. Ms. Munley said that a panel could be
selected from that organization because AAA was the same panel for four times the
money. The City and Union attorneys could come up with a field of arbitrators from
11
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
which each could choose. She said it might be that the panel could consist of two
people and not seven. Mr. Hawkins agreed that the City could look at this.
Comp Time
Ms. Munley referred to the same article in the Blue Collar agreement where the Union
conceptually agreed to move its language into its own article and put in 60 days.
Previously, there was nothing in the white-collar contract about the amount of hours
that could be banked. The blue collar and white-collar comp time details were different.
Ms. Munley asked if they put in the number of hours that could be banked whether that
would be all that had to be talked about for this article. Mr. Hawkins said that in the
City's proposal it said 30 days.
Ms. Munley thought that not being able to use the time in the week in which it was
earned was changed in the blue collar and Mr. Hawkins agreed that it was but that in
the white-collar contract, that was not even a consideration. He thought the Union
might mean the Evidence people in the Police Department but they did not even do
that. They get called out but they get time and a half for it. Ms. Lytle said that there
might be white-collar employees that did special events. Ms. Munley said that they
would set up two accounting nightmares because the blue collar needs to be able to
say ! worked all night and ! want to take four hours sleep, for example. !f you don't do
it the same way with the white collar, it will make it difficult for Accounting.
Mr. Lee thought that this was an administrative point that did come up with blue collar
where they were demanding to be paid or be able to use earned comp time in the same
pay period. Mr. Ricard asked who kept track of comp time. Mr. Hawkins said that the
H.T.E. system could track this now. He mentioned the blue-collar employees, saying
that they were trying to make up their 40 hours. They were not at work and at some
other time wanted to use it to make up a 40-hour week, and Mr. Hawkins said, yes. Ms.
Munley said it wouldn't be in the same week because you had to be here 40 hours in
order to get comp time. Ms. Lytle thought that some of the guys on callback convert
their time to comp time. Hr. Hawkins pointed out that it was the employee's choice of
whether to get paid or get comp time. Ms. Munley said and they are using it to make
their workweek 40 hours? How could they do that? Mr. Lee said Ms. Munley was right
- you can't do that. Ms. Lytle said they were using comp time as hours worked and Mr.
Hawkins said that this was the problem. Ms. Munley referred to another article where it
said that vacation and sick time could count towards overtime, but comp time was
never in there. Mr. Hawkins thought that the City had not made it clear enough that
one had to work 40 hours in order to get comp time. Ms. Lytle thought it might affect
the Police Records Clerks. A lot of times they are asked to do overtime and work a lot of
extra shifts and they want to use that comp time. Ms. Munley said that emergency
communications had the same thing.
12
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Ms. Munley asked if they could just "not go there" and clarify that comp time is not
used in the computation of overtime. She thought that might be the issue that they
were trying to fix, or the City needed to talk to the Accounting people about the nature
of the problem. Mr. Hawkins said that with the white-collar unit, this was not a
problem.
Ms. Munley thought, then, that the sentence about not using comp time in the week in
which it was earned could be taken out.
Mr. Lee said there had been issues with this, probably with the blue-collar group. Mr.
Ricard said that if they worked late, that should be part of their getting to their 40
hours. Mr. Lee said there are 80 hours in the pay period and an employee has worked
that number of hours, for example, and then works late. It would normally be overtime,
but they said they wanted to take it in comp time. He thought the issue was being able
to do it within the same pay period and not waiting till the next pay period.
Mr. Ricard thought that if a person used comp time in the same pay period as it was
earned, it would not be comp time but wages. Ms. Munley asked how that could be
done. If a person worked two hours over for four days, he or she could take Friday off
using comp time, she thought.
Ms. Munley amended the Union's proposal to say, "Compensatory time must be used
within 60 calendar days of the pay period in which it was earned or be paid out to the
employee." She didn't address the issue of not using it in the same pay period.
Mr. Lee stated that it should be the employee's choice as to whether to bank the time
or be paid for it. Mr. Hawkins stated that the City reserves the right to convert any
accrued compensatory time hours to pay at its sole discretion. He asked the Union if
they had any problem with that. Ms. Lytle said, yes because if that policy were not
applied across the board, it would be a problem. Mr. Hawkins said the City was willing
to accept the Union's language about the employee having a choice, and was willing to
look at the 60 calendar days. Mr. Hawkins said there had to be some way that if the
employee did not use it during the 60 days, they get paid for it.
Ms. Munley suggested adding "upon completion of the 60 days" to the language. Mr.
Hawkins said this just gave the City the right to go ahead and cut a check without
asking the person. The Union thought this was reasonable. Mr. Hawkins wanted to
capture the sentence, "Employees may accrue and use compensatory time in lieu of
overtime pay when employee works in excess of 40 hours of a work week." Ms. Munley
stated that a person could use his or her comp time before he or she had worked 40
hours, but would have to have worked 40 hours to earn it. Ms. Lytle stated that a
person would have to earn and accrue it in one week and use it in another week before
he or she had 40 hours. Ms. Munley suggested saying, "Employees may accrue comp
13
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
time in lieu of overtime pay when the employee works in excess of 40 hours in a work
week." As far as using it goes, a person could take '~0 hours or more off if the
supervisor approved it. The Union wanted the statement, "in compliance with FLSA" in
the language. Mr. Hawkins suggested saying, "Comp time will be accrued and used at
the same rate the overtime would be paid, but must be used within 60 calendar days of
the pay period in which it is earned." Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Lee will work on the
language and bring this article back.
Sick Leave
Ms. Munley said Restricted Sick Leave, Sharing Sick Leave, and Workers Comp were in
three other places, but the City's proposal was missing the Sick Leave Payout section.
Ms. Munley said that since the Workers Comp was moved to another article, she
wanted verification that a person could still supplement his or her Workers Comp with
his or her sick leave time in order to get a full check, and Mr. Hawkins agreed that this
was still the case.
Ms. Munley said that Section I in the Union's proposal said, "An employee shall notify
his immediate supervisor or his designee in a manner determined by management. The
timeframe of the Union's proposal is one hour after his/her normal workday begins. The
City's proposal calls for one hour before his/her normal workday.
Mr. Ricard said that since his department starts at 7:30, it was difficult to get a
message on Mr. Don Johnson's telephone. Mr. Hawkins asked if Mr. Johnson's voice
mail picked up before 7:30, and Mr. Ricard said that it did not. Mr. Hawkins asked if
Mr. Johnson had a cell phone? He mentioned an instance in which he had a car
breakdown and tried to call at 5:30 in the morning. There is one person in his unit that
comes in early who will answer the telephone around 6:00 to 6:30 a.m.
After discussion, the parties agreed that the call-in would be 30 minutes before an
employee's shift begins or 30 minutes after.
Ms. Munley asked if it would be all right if the call-ins could be "in a manner designated
by management," and Mr. Hawkins agreed. Ms. Munley stated that management
needed to have a number to call, a person to call, and a checklist of what do, and Mr.
Hawkins agreed.
Mr. Hawkins indicated that the City's "D" would become the Union's F.
Tn the Union's proposal, Ms. Munley stated that the Union wished to alter the language
in its Sick Leave article, Section F, to say that the City "shall" pay out for sick leave in
cash if the employee has the amount of sick leave credited to his/her sick leave
14
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
account, striking out all other language in that paragraph. She felt that this would help
people.
Mr. Hawkins agreed with the sick leave payout issue and possibly getting it yearly or
something. He did not agree with striking the rest of section F that dealt with
extraordinary circumstances and so forth. Ms. Munley thought that paying out sick
leave once a year was good, for any reason that was allowable, at 50%. Mr. Hawkins
was willing to go with the 50% for all employees, but wanted to keep the extraordinary
circumstances feature. Ms. Munley said that "F" never said that the cash payout would
be at 50%, this was something made up by the City. She would have taken issue with it
if she had known about it. "F" says they could cash in not to exceed 80 hours and she
did not know that if she cashed in 80 hours, she would get paid for 40 hours. That
would have been a grievance. If they were going to say 50%, it should be for
everybody across the board.
Mr. Lee said that in vacation, you could only cash out a maximum between sick and
vacation of 80 hours in that particular period of time. Ns. Lytle said that in the Union's
contract it said either or, sick or vacation, and you had to prove extraordinary
circumstances and you could do it only once during the entire contract. Management
does it yearly for no reason at all. Ns. IVlunley said that these guys who could have had
80, if it happened tomorrow, they could probably grieve it and win it. It does not say
you have to cash in 80 to get 40 in your hand. It just says the sick leave cash out may
not exceed 80 hours. Mr. Lee said they had been cashing it out at 50%. Mr. Lee said,
though, that the City had an issue with this. They do not want to pay out at 100%.
Ms. Munley said they might be willing to trade - give 50% across the board for
everyone when they have an extraordinary need or when they retire. She was not in
favor of the two-tiered systems.
Presently, a person only gets paid out at 50% if he or she leaves the City. Mr. Lee
indicated that the City needed to talk about how to pay this out. Finance was having a
problem with this. Ms. Lytle said that to cash in 80 hours, a person had to cash in 160
hours. Mr. Hawkins was concerned with maintaining consistency in the payout rules.
Ms. Munley wanted clarification. Mr. Hawkins stated that in the City, when a person
leaves, they get 50% of their sick time and Finance wants to maintain that rule even in
the circumstance of hardship situations. Ms. Lytle asked about all the people in the "B"
Plan, who only receive 10% of their sick time. She asked if the City would let them cash
in at 50%. Ms. Munley said that a hardship was apples and oranges, rvlr. Lee said they
were only talking about F in the current contract, extraordinary circumstances, and not
when an employee leaves. Ms. Munley said that everybody should get the same. Ms.
Lytle said that those under the management package could cash in sick leave without
an emergency.
15
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Ms. Lytle noted that the A plan would soon be phased out anyway, since there would
be hardly anyone left that were getting 50%. Ms. Munley thought it would be good to
bring the 10% people up to 40% or another 5%. There were more people in the B
plan.
Ms. Munley said they had also discussed using these dollars to pay for health care
costs, when an employee is not old enough for Medicare. Where Ms. Munley used to
work, once you reached a threshold, you started a new bank and those dollars could be
taken out at 50% or you could use all of them to supplement your health care. Ms.
Munley suggested a possibility of paying sick leave out at 30% and the other 70%
would pay for supplemental health care. Mr. Hawkins stated that they would have to
consider this.
Ms. Munley spoke of setting up accounts where people could put money from which
they could pay co-pays. Mr. Lee said they had AFLAC. At the School Board, there is
an account where you can pay child-care expenses and co-pays on drugs. There are all
kinds of ways to help the employee without losing it - to make it attractive not to abuse
sick time. Mr. Hawkins said that a lot of this stuff had come up on the Insurance
Committee where they were discussing innovative ways to deal with insurance in the
days to come. She said we could get creative and the City could be "cutting edge."
Mr. Hawkins stated that the City would look at this and possibly bring the Finance
Director in to talk about it.
Ms. Munley felt that a lot of progress had been made.
City's Recent Pay Plan Adjustments
Ms. Munley stated that there were some people who were getting raises and that the
Union had not been consulted beforehand. She was not against the raises but if the
Union were not involved, money could also be taken away from Union workers without
their advice or consent, and she did not want that. Mr. Hawkins stated that the City
very rarely adjusted pay levels downwards.
Ms. Lytle said that the real problem was that the City kept compressing the salaries and
raising the entry level and the middle level people are going backwards. People coming
in are making the same thing as the guy that has been here for three years. Mr.
Hawkins asked how many people were affected and Ms. Munley said that it affected a
handful of white-collar employees but the principle was still the same. She said it
needed to come to the Union as part of the City's pay proposal and the Union needs to
ratify it. Mr. Hawkins said this would probably be the way the City would approach it.
Ms. Lytle stated that the affected employees would be getting those raises this Friday.
Ms. Lytle verified that they were speaking about the Resolution that upgraded positions.
16
Meeting Minutes
White Collar Collective Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
October 9, 2003
Mr. Hawkins said that they needed to exclude the Union people then? Ms. Munley
agreed that this was so, although the workers might be angry about it.
Ms. Munley referred to a salary comparison study that showed the Union employees
were about $4K behind. Ms. Munley asked for a list from the City showing salaries
sorted by job title and seniority. The oldest will be listed first with a salary amount by
his or her name to see if compression is happening.
The Union has researched pay levels for people who were on standby and callback
status, but this will be discussed at the time of the Wage article discussion. The Union
agreed to a status quo position on this in order to get a contract, but it was an issue
that was in need of attention. It affects fire inspectors, crime scene technicians,
laboratory workers, and some water quality employees in Utilities.
Ms. Lytle stated that there were also issues with uniforms.
Next Meeting
The next meeting will be on Tuesday, October 14, 2003, and will begin at 1:00 p.m.
and go through 4:00 p.m. The blue-collar meeting will skip a week and resume on
Tuesday, October 21 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Collins
Recording Secretary
(101003)
17