Loading...
Minutes 01-08-04MINUTES OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SESSION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS, WHITE COLLAR WORKERS, AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, HELD ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2004 AT 1:30 P.M. IN THE POLICE AND FIRE TRAINING ROOM, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 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 Call to Order Mr. Hawkins called the meeting to order at 1:55 p.m. and Mr. Lee distributed an updated matrix of the Articles. Mr. Lee handed Ms. Munley a redrafted version of the White Collar Union Contract that has incorporated the hand written language of the TA articles. Ms. Munley will have copies made and furnish them to Ms. Lytle and Mr. Ricard. Approval of December 16, 2003 Minutes Ms. Munley reviewed the minutes and stated she had no changes. Mr. Hawkins requested one change be made on page 2 under "Uniforms" in the last sentence of the second paragraph. The word "tan" should be changed to "white." There were no other changes to the minutes. Articles Still Open for Discussion Mr. Hawkins pointed out that the following Articles were still open for discussion: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Progressive Discipline Grievance Procedures Basic Work Week and Overtime Reclassification & Wage Adjustment Transfers Standby Pay Call Back Pay Sick Leave Restrictive Sick Leave Workers Compensation Light Duty Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 12. Funeral Leave 13. Maintenance of Benefits 14. Recruitment and Selection 15. Vacation 16. Wages 17. Uniforms 18. General Provisions 19. Du ration 20. Collateral Documents Articles Discussed, but not TA'd Mr. Hawkins pointed out that at the last meeting there had been discussions involving uniforms and shoes under safety and health. Also, there were discussions on standby and callback. A wage proposal had been forwarded and the Duration Article was also discussed. Safety Shoes and Uniforms Mr. Hawkins reported that they were attempting to come up with a list of white collar employees that are required to wear safety shoes, as well as determining what departments had white collar union members that wore uniforms. Mr. Ricard stated that the wearing of uniforms applied to the Police, Fire, and Building Departments, but he was not sure if it applied to the Utilities Department. Ms. Munley acknowledged that Fire Inspectors and Building Inspectors must wear safety shoes. Mr. Ricard felt that this should apply to anyone who had to work outside in the performance of their job for the City. Mr. Ricard felt that Mr. Magazine should have a list of those positions. Mr. Hawkins telephoned Mr. Magazine's office and requested this information, which Mr. Magazine furnished later in the meeting. Mr. Hawkins inquired if the language that was used in the blue-collar negotiations for safety shoes would also apply to the white collar. Ms. Munley stated that it would and the cost of the safety shoes would be the same amount in both instances. She felt that it was difficult to come up with the proper language for uniforms because it has to be determined to whom this would apply. Ms. Munley referred to Sections 7 and 8 on page 51 of the current contract that addresses the wearing of uniforms. Currently, Section 7 states that persons required to wear uniforms will receive the same number of pieces. Mr. Hawkins stated that they have to determine what this number should be so that some type of standard could be established. Ms. Munley noted that the blue-collar members receive five short sleeve or long sleeve shirts, five pairs of pants, five tee shirts and a jacket bi-annually and hats as necessary. Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 Mr. Hawkins recommended creating a uniform article for white-collar employees as well. Ms. Munley offered to work on this and present it at the next meeting. Mr. Hawkins also stated that if uniforms were provided to specific departments, they would have to be worn; currently, this is not required. Mr. Ricard confirmed this was correct. He pointed out that when the budget restraints were put in place, they had to cut back on uniforms. Mr. Hawkins noted that because this is a budgetary issue, if uniforms are purchased, people would be required to wear them. Ms. Lytle inquired if this requirement was eliminated, could employees receive a larger percentage of money than blue-collar workers because the City does not have to purchase uniforms. She pointed out that the majority of the workforce does not wear uniforms. Mr. Hawkins did not feel that the City was obligated to supply uniforms in certain situations, particularly in non-traditional settings. Ms. Lytle felt that it was the City's responsibility to determine whether uniforms were mandatory or not. Mr. Hawkins noted that currently the Building Department is supplied shirts, pants and safety shoes, but not everyone wore them because they wore out and were not replaced. The question here is whether the City wants to supply employees with more shirts and require that they be worn. Mr. Ricard said that the Building Department employees would rather be supplied shirts and buy their own pants. Ms. Lytle pointed out that when the City's dress code was put in place, certain departments were no longer permitted to wear City logo shirts on Fridays and the clerical employees at the Library wanted to continue them. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that the Library must display a certain amount of professionalism and the Director did not think that these shirts were appropriate. He also felt that employees of the clerical staff at the Library should not be required to wear uniforms. Ms. Lytle inquired if there was a difference among the Building Department, Customer Service, Library or Code Compliance clerical employees' degree of professionalism. Mr. Hawkins emphasized that he did not want all white-collar employees wearing uniforms. He explained that it is preferred that certain white-collar employees wear a more professional dress. In that event, Ms. Lytle requested that non-uniform employees be given a clothing allowance. She felt this was the only way to deal with this situation since employees receiving uniforms received more than those employees who did not wear uniforms. Ms. Munley inquired if employees were still receiving two polo shirts on their anniversary date and Ms. Lytle stated this was still in effect. However, many employees no longer order the shirts because they are not allowed to wear them. Ms. Lytle questioned if the City was trying to separate union members in accordance with their level of their profession. Ms. Munley pointed out that not allowing employees to wear the City polo shirt was a violation of the contract because the contract states employees receive two polo shirts 3 Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 and can wear them. Therefore, employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement should be allowed to wear their polo shirts. Mr. Hawkins explained that there are certain environments where management feels uniforms are not appropriate. Mr. Hawkins acknowledged that there are certain areas in the City where uniforms would be appropriate and those employees should continue to receive the shirts. Ms. Munley felt that the language in Section 8 covered employees who were not required to wear polo shirts, but were given the option of wearing them if they so wished in place of wearing business clothes. Mr. Hawkins felt that these were two separate issues and they should be addressed separately. With regard to employees that are required to wear uniforms, Ms. Munley recommended leaving the language as written in Section 7 and add shirts and shoes. Ms. Munley next recommended that employees not required to wear uniforms could have the number of polo shirts increased to five. Mr. Hawkins reiterated that if an employee was given five shirts, that employee must wear them five days per week. Mr. Ricard did not think that five shirts would be sufficient and Mr. Hawkins noted that it had been previously discussed supplying seven shirts. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that the polo shirts had been provided for the City's dress down day, which the City no longer observes. Ms. Lytle stated that she wears a City polo shirt everyday and is only supplied two shirts. Mr. Hawkins agreed that if Ms. Lytle is required to wear polo shirts everyday, she should be supplied with a greater number of shirts. Ms. Lytle requested that employees be allowed to receive five polo shirts if they are allowed to wear them in their department and $100 for employees who are not allowed to wear them. Mr. Hawkins stated that if the union wanted to put this on the table, they would consider it part of the wage package. It was agreed that the number of shirts would be increased to seven. Ms. Munley confirmed that employees that receive seven shirts would have to wear them. Mr. Hawkins added that the provision in the blue-collar contract for replacement shirts could also be included, which the union agreed to. Ms. Lytle inquired if the language about "status quo" could be changed. Mr. Hawkins did not have a problem with this request. Ms. Lytle pointed out that the Police Department felt that this could not be changed. Mr. Hawkins said that he would address this with Chief Gage. Ms. Munley noted that a provision for a jacket bi-annually would also be added. There will be a new Article for uniforms that will provide: (1) That the number of shirts will be increased to seven shirts; (2) Employees will receive one jacket bi-annually, and (3) Shirts can be exchanged if they are damaged. Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 Employees not required to wear uniforms would receive a monetary stipend. Ms. Munley requested that this be $200. She will put something together for the next meeting. Safety Shoes Mr. Hawkins noted that the blue-collar language on shoes needed to be incorporated in the Safety and Health Article for white collar. Ms. Lytle inquired if it was differentiated between a steel toe safety shoe or a shoe that would be part of a uniform. Mr. Hawkins noted that this has already been defined by the City shoe policy, which Mr. Magazine provided. Ms. Munley recommended language that would state, "that the degree of the safety shoe is determined by the Risk Management Department." Sick Leave Donation The parties TA'd this Article. Restricted Sick Leave Mr. Hawkins noted that this had been discussed eadier at the blue-collar session and that a citywide policy is needed. Ms. Munley said that at that meeting it had been discussed to add language at the end of the first sentence that would read, "when there is a pattern of abuse of sick leave." Also, when a person is on restricted sick leave, they would be required to bring a doctor's note for each absence." Mr. Hawkins noted that this would apply during a 12-month period. Ms. Munley stated that it was discussed this morning that during the first occasion in a 12-month period, a person would go on restricted sick leave for three months. If there was a second occasion, it would be for six months, and a third occasion in a 12-month period would warrant restricted sick leave for one year. If a person did not have a repeat offense after the first three months, they would start over again. If a person repeated the pattern again within this 12-month period of time, they would have to start a new 12 months. Ms. Lytle inquired if a person would be warned by their supervisor that they would be placed on restrictive sick leave before it actually happened. Mr. Hawkins stated that this was not the case. The department head would speak with the employee and inform that employee that there has been a pattern of abuse of sick leave and that employee could be placed on restrictive sick leave. Ms. Lytle felt that a person should be warned before this actually happened. Mr. Hawkins stated that this is the current policy. Ms. Lytle would like to have some kind of policy that employees would be informed that they are not allowed to use sick time in a pattern, otherwise they would be placed on Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 restrictive sick leave. She noted that currently employees are not placed on restrictive sick leave until attending a counseling session. Mr. Hawkins also noted that it was incumbent upon the employee to keep his supervisor apprised of what is going on in his life if he is having some kind of medical problem. This is how it is currently being handled in the City. Ms. Munley noted that the current language states that an employee may be placed on restrictive sick leave following a counseling session. At that time, the employee would be given an opportunity to explain why they have taken the sick leave, but it is the sole discretion of the department director to place someone on restrictive sick leave. Ms. Munley noted that there were no guidelines for the director to put someone on restrictive sick leave, but noting that there is a pattern would be a reason to place someone on restrictive sick leave. Mr. Hawkins felt that this new language would provide the employee a better understanding of what would be applied if the problem continues. Ms. Munley stated that the current contract does not cite what happens to the employee if they do not improve in that three-month period. She inquired if any employee had ever been on restricted sick leave for a year and no one was aware of this. Mr. Lee pointed out that this has not happened because there was a 90-day revolving period where the employee would remain on restrictive sick leave. With the graduated schedule a person would know what would happen if he continued to have a problem and that it could go up to one year. Ms. Lytle inquired why that person would not be terminated if they continually abused sick leave and Mr. Hawkins said that this would happen. He pointed out with the graduated schedule the employee would be given due notice that they could be terminated. Ms. Lytle felt it should be specified that if the pattern continued for more than a 12-month period, that employee would be subject to progressive discipline. Ms. Munley felt that if a person where in their second restrictive leave status, they should have to attend EAP and at the third tier, progressive discipline would begin. Ms. Munley pointed out that if an employee presented a note from their doctor, they have not violated the restricted sick leave. Ms. Lytle questioned if the steps should be eliminated and remain at the 90 day rolling period. Mr. Hawkins said that they would like to have some parameters in order to help those employees accumulate sick time, which is the purpose of the graduated schedule. Ms. Munley will work on this article prior to the next meeting and will make the following changes: · Add language that would state, "when a pattern of abuse of sick leave usage is present" in the first sentence. 6 Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 Add language that would state, "When an employee is placed on restricted sick leave, they would be required to present a doctor's note for each absence." · Add language that restrictive sick leave is a rolling year; the fist occurrence would be a three-month stint; with no improvement, it would continue for an additional six months; with no improvement, it would continue for 12 months. · If an employee improves within that rolling year, they could go to the next step if they fall backwards. · Employees that have reached the second level, which is the six-month tier, would be asked to attend EAP. · Employees that reached the 12-month level would be subject to progressive discipline · Restricted sick leave would not violate the Family Medical Leave Act. Ms. Munley will make these changes to both the blue and white-collar contracts. Pay Proposal Mr. Hawkins stated that the City's position is that they need to come up with a better definition of "what meets standards" and make sure that it is applied across the board throughout the City. After that, a market adjustment acceptable to the union needs to be negotiated. Ms. Munley stated that the blue collar has asked for 5% across the board and a 5% merit increase, contingent upon a pass/fail system. Mr. Ricard acknowledged that most workplaces have performance standards, but he would like assurances that it is not being manipulated. Ms. Lytle inquired if the City achieved the results that it had anticipated from the evaluation process. Mr. Hawkins responded that the City feels that they have a good objective system in place. Some departments and divisions are doing a good job at evaluating and some are not. In the departments that did an excellent job, employees all felt that they were treated fairly. On the other hand, there are departments where employees felt that they were shafted. Ms. Lytle pointed out that Mr. Hawkins had previously stated that supervisors were being retrained to perform evaluations and she knows of employees who have not received their six-month evaluation. Mr. Lee responded that the City did go through retraining and have identified personnel that had problems. Also, new supervisors and anyone else that needed retraining attended. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that the first part of the training involved a test and some supervisors will be working with mentors in performing evaluations. Mr. Hawkins noted that all employees should have received the proper paperwork to do their Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 evaluations. If there are employees who did not receive anything, then the supervisor is at fault. Mr. Ricard inquired how the City is tracking the supervisors to make sure they are doing things properly. Mr. Hawkins said that supervisors are being prepared for the next round and have been put on notice that the preliminary evaluations are coming up. Mr. Lee stressed that it was incumbent upon the supervisors to sit down with their staff individually by February 1st and review the employee evaluations individually for the six- month period. Therefore when April 1st arrives, employees would not be surprised as to how they had been performing since their performance had been reviewed during the preliminary evaluations. Ms. Lytle inquired why the evaluations could not be based upon a pass/fail system and not making it so complicated. Mr. Hawkins stressed that the evaluation system is not that complicated; it is merely getting the supervisors onboard as to what is expected of them in performing these evaluations correctly. Ms. Lytle also inquired if the point system was still in place or were the scores going to be rounded off. She felt that this needed clarification because of the problems that arose during the prior performance raises. Discussion took place on how the various departments graded their employees and it was pointed out that there was a discrepancy in grading throughout all the departments. Some departments rated all their employees very high, while other departments rated their staff very Iow. Mr. Lee stressed that it is a difficult job to get all supervisors on the same page, since each supervisor views their employees differently. Ms. Lytle pointed out that supervisors do not grade their employees on their individual performance, but look at how the department performed as a whole. Ms. Lytle also pointed out that there was an inconsistency in employee goals and questioned why some employees were given five goals while others were only given two or three. She did not think that this was a proper way to evaluate people. Ms. Lytle felt if a person attained more goals then their reward should be greater than employees who attained a lesser number of goals, which Mr. Hawkins agreed with. Ms. Munley felt that the system should be made simpler. If a person meets standards, they should be rated at meets expectations. If an employee exceeds expectation, they should be rewarded accordingly. She felt that the process was too complicated. Mr. Hawkins pointed out that if the process were applied as intended, it would work the way Ms. Munley presented it. Ms. Munley felt that if an employee has performed their job all year without any problems, they should meet expectations and if an employee has received kudos then they have exceeded expectations. Also, Ms. Munley felt that everyone should have the same number of goals. Also, raises should be across the board for employees that meet expectations and employees that exceed expectations could receive an additional percentage. 8 Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 Ms. Munley suggested that one of the next scheduled meetings be a combined meeting with blue and white-collar representatives to explain how the performance evaluation system works. Mr. Hawkins felt that this could be possible. Ms. Lytle inquired if the percentages would remain the same at 1% through 4% and Mr. Hawkins stated that they would. Ms. Munley felt that the percentage should be increased to at least 5%. Ms. Munley did not think that a 2% to 2~% was a good enough raise, which is where the majority of the percentages fell for the last wage increases. Ms. Lytle pointed out that last year's increases averaged out to where the majority of the people came in at meets standards. Ms. Munley did not performance system, She would like to see think that the employees were against having some kind of but she felt that employees thought that the system was unfair. the system improved where it would be fair to everyone. Mr. Hawkins felt that they probably could come up with some parameters and see how they would work for one year and then come back and re-evaluate everything. Mr. Hawkins said that he would arrange to have a complete presentation on how the performance evaluations are supposed to work for the next meeting. After the problems are identified, they will be able to come up with some parameters for "meets standards" and then see how the percentages could be applied. Ms. Lytle suggested that a committee could be set up to do evaluations. Mr. Hawkins noted that some departments performed their evaluations by a committee, especially if a person had more than one supervisor. Mr. Hawkins explained that the larger departments had more problems compared to the smaller ones. Mr. Lee reported that many performance systems had been looked at and the current system had been selected. He felt that the program did need some refining and Mr. Jordan, the Assistant Human Resource Director, has put a team of supervisors together to study it. Mr. Lee suggested that it might be beneficial to also have a union representative on the committee. Ms. Lytle requested that the pay for performance be put on hold for this year until an improved version can be devised. Mr. Hawkins did not think that this was necessary since they have already begun to address the departments that had issues previously. There was discussion that the performance evaluations are used as a discipline tool and Mr. Hawkins emphatically stated that this is not what a performance evaluation was meant to be. Ms. Munley stated that this is being done in some departments. Ms. Lytle felt that many categories were not rated correctly because they did not apply to certain positions or job functions. With regard to applying the weights, Mr. Hawkins stated that weights should be applied in accordance with the job functions. Meeting Minutes White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida January 8, 2004 Next Meeting The next meeting will be a joint meeting with the white and blue collar on Wednesday, January 14, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. with a place to be determined. At that meeting, there will be a presentation on the performance evaluation system. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 4:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (January 9, 2004) 10