Loading...
Minutes 03-29-04BLUE COLLAR AND WHZTE COLLAR COLLECI'~E BARGAZNING SESSZON BETWEEN THE NA'rZONAL CONFERENCE OF FZREI~IEN & OTLERS AND THE cz'rY OF BOYNTON BEACH HELD ON MONDAY, MARGH 2g, 2004 AT 11:00 A.M. I'N CONFERENCE ROOI~I C~ WEST WI'NG~ CZI'Y HALL~ BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORZDA Present For NCF&O Sharon Munley, President, Local 1227 Debbie Lytle, Steward, Utilities (White Collar) Bob Kruper, Union Steward Mike Osborn, Union Stewart Don Roberts, Union Steward Richard Stone, Union Steward Mike Taylor, Union Steward Rick Smith, Union Steward John Wolcott, Union Steward For the City: Also present: Wilfred Hawkins, Assistant City Manager Arthur Lee, Director of Human Resources John Jordan, Assistant Director of Human Resources Jeffrey Livergood, Public Works Director I. Opening Mr. Hawkins opened the meeting at 11:22 a.m. He advised that the minutes from Friday's meeting were not available yet. II. Discussion of Articles Task Jeffrey Livergood gave comments and feedback on the City and Union Task proposals. Ms. Munley explained that in preparing the Union's proposal on Task, she had gone through the contract and pulled out anything related to Task and put it in the proposal. Mr. Livergood stated that they had tried to simplify it. Mr. Livergood felt that it was important that the section on Task be clear and not be in conflict with any other sections that relate to overtime unless very clearly spelled out within the Task paragraph. He confirmed his understanding that the only Task employees in the City were in the Sanitation Division. He also iterated his understanding Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 of Task as "when the job for the day is complete, the employee goes home." He asked the Union if this were a fair way of looking at it. Ms. Munley thought that this was a little too simple. Mr. Kruper said that it was basically correct. Mr. Livergood stated that this was different from all the other employees in the City, who would stay for the remainder of the day. Mr. Livergood did not think that "the job" had been adequately defined yet. Mr. Livergood saw several conflicts and/or discrepancies in the labor agreement between the Task assignments in sections such as Overtime, Holidays, and so forth. He thought that the ultimate Task section had to be very clear about how overtime and holidays worked, with special recognition for Task-assigned employees only. Union Task Proposal IVlr. Livergood did not have any concern with the Union sections lA and B; however, he asked that overall, the term Sanitation be changed to solid waste. Regarding Section 1C, he asked if the proposal were that when an employee was finished with his regular route, regardless of the time, and were asked to assist in any other route, that he would then be paid time and a half beginning at that point. Ms. Munley said that this was the Union proposal but they had discussed that this would be when it was due to a lack of manpower or equipment. Mr. Livergood understood manpower as illnesses, vacations, and so forth. Mr. Livergood understood the Union proposal to call for double time and a half when an employee was finished with his normal assigned job and was assigned to a different route for the balance of the day. Mr. Kruper did not agree that it was double time and a half. He stated that if an employee finished his job at noon and had to go on another route for the rest of the day, from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m., the employee would get time and a half instead of straight time for that period. This was not in addition to regular Task pay (for the time from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m. in the example.) Mr. Livergood said that this was not clearly stated in the proposal. Mr. Livergood asked for the justification of the Union's request. The Union responded that the employees had a Task assignment that they did every day, and when that Task was completed, they could either go home or stay and help the City, but there should be some reward for that. Mr. Livergood said that the alternative could be that the employees go home and the driver that has that route works until they are done. If not assigned by a supervisor to assist, the other Task employees would be sent home and that employee would stay for the duration of the day to complete that route. Ms. 2 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 Munley said that at the end of the week, if the hours went over 40, that employee would be compensated with overtime. Ms. Munley said that there was language like this in the St. Petersburg contract. When someone finishes his assigned task and is asked to go help someone else complete his Task, whatever time he spends in that capacity is paid at time and a half. Ms. Munley said that in the second part of C, they were talking about paying overtime on a person's day off. The way it is now is that if a person finishes his assigned task in 6 hours every day and then works on Saturday, Saturday would be at straight time. The Union wants it to be at time and a half when it is any day that is not the employee's normally scheduled day. Mr. Livergood stated that it would depend on the City's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was very clear. He personally did not support the Union's viewpoint on this, believing instead that overtime should be paid for any hours worked in excess of 40. He thought this was reasonable and this was his recommendation to the negotiating committee. Mr. Livergood had no objections to 1D: All routes shall be equalized as closely as possible, as determined by the Public Works Director. However, he wanted to be clear that he did not personally design the routes. Mr. Hawkins inquired about what equalizing the routes meant in item 1D. Mr. Kruper explained that as much as possible, the routes should be equalized as to the number of homes per garbage pickup route. Mr. Livergood said that if this language were to be the approved language, the routes were equalized by time. He stated that some routes could be done in less time due to the layout of the homes on the route. Mr. Livergood said it could be equalized by centerline miles of streets, by number of homes, tonnage of garbage picked up, hours of the day, number of grade school children who live on the routes, but there should be some factor that defined this better. Mr. Kruper said that it was equalized right now on the automated route by the number of homes. Ns. I~lunley commented that this was existing language on page 16, in Article 10. Both s/des confirmed that this had been working. Mr. Livergood asked where Section 1E had originated. (Employees covering other employees assigned routes for a complete 40-hour period shall work the same shift for the entire period as the employee whose shift they are covering.) Mr. Kruper stated that a person completing another person's entire route for a week should assume the schedule of the route itself; i.e., if a 5/8 individual takes the route, he should work a 4/10 shift if that is the shift attached to that route. Mr. Livergood had Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 no issue with this on a weekly basis. He commented, though, that some employees might wish to keep working their 5/8 schedules when taking a 4/10 route just because of personal preference, childcare arrangements or whatever. Mr. Livergood noted that management often had complaints for not giving the employees sufficient notice of shift changes. Mr. Osborn said that the problem arose when changes were made to shifts mid-week. Mr. Livergood did not think that an employee's shift could or should be changed mid-week. He stated that schedules could only be changed for a period of at least one week. Both s/des understood and agreed that 48 hours was a reasonab/e per/od of not/ce for shilt changes. The discussion continued about 5/8 employees who were not on Task and could not go home at the end of the 4/10 route, for example. Mr. Livergood stated that the 5/8 employees had other tasks and duties. Assigning the 5/8 employees to work on the Task rotation may not be in the best interest of the department because there may be other duties that this employee needs to perform on what would be the fifth day of the week. Mr..lordan stated that there were some employees who were 5/8 and not Task. Mr. Hawkins asked if they would fill in for someone who was a 4/10. Mr. Livergood said yes, and that this could be worked either way - as a 4/10 and make them a Task employee or as a 5/8 and make them a regular employee. Mr. Kruper said this was what the employees did not want. They did not want to be worked both ways. This is why the Union was trying to get this changed, zf they were going to fill in for someone on vacation for a week, they would be filling in for the whole week. Ms. Munley asked if employees volunteered to fill in and Mr. Livergood stated that it was by assignment and was typically based upon licensing, pay classifications, and other requirements. Mr. Osbom said that the people who are 5/8s are being shifted over to do the Task assignments, do them, and yet still have to come in on a Wednesday to do other assignments and they have to stay 8 hours. He felt these people should be put on Task (and operate under Task guidelines) for the week that they were filling in. Mr. Livergood stated that they would still be paid as a 5/8 employee and nothing had changed for them. They still got paid for 40 hours based upon 5 days. Did it really matter the assignments they were given during the course of the day? Mr..lordan pointed out that the fill-ins were only temporary assignments. Mr. Livergood said that this did not come up very often and he was surprised that this was an issue at 4 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 this negotiation. He believed that the impact on the employee should be the foremost consideration and not whether they went from 4/10 to 5/8 or Task/Not Task. Ms. Munley stated that they would talk about this because there might be a way to fix it. In Section 1F it states: All qualified Sanitation employees shall be included in the overtime rotation no matter their normal daily route assignments. Mr. Livergood commented that he did not know if this qualification statement referred to qualified as to licensure, but in his mind it went beyond qualified because on a daily basis, Monday through Friday, there were a number of drivers of roll-off trucks visiting the construction sites to pick up debris. In addition to their knowledge of how to drive the roll-off vehicle, they know where the boxes are; they know the construction foremen, and they know what the obstacles are that they have to drive around. For safety reasons, and only for safety reasons, they should be the people that work the overtime. He realized that there were other drivers who were qualified to drive the trucks, but felt that the City had to look at the safety impact. Mr. Livergood could not agree to 1F at all. Ms. Munley asked how a person got to be a roll-off driver, and Mr. Livergood replied that they would have to apply for it if there were a vacancy. Mr. Kruper felt that he was qualified as a roll-off driver since he had successfully completed this assignment recently, after a two-year period in which he did not drive roll-offs. He recalled how to do it. Mr. Livergood felt that this statement needed more definition if it were to be even considered for inclusion in the contract. Overtime rotation implied to him that ALL overtime is on rotation with ALL qualified drivers - any overtime, not absences, but overtime. He thought that the first overtime assignments should be given to the people who do the job all week. Mr. Kruper stated that this meant that they would be the only ones who get the overtime. Mr. Livergood commented that they control the assignments on overtime but could not control absences and vacancies that must be filled in. Mr. Kruper's point was that if he were qualified enough to do the job when someone did not show up, he was qualified for the overtime. He had operated roll-off trucks successfully and picked up the boxes from the construction sites. He asked why he was not qualified for the overtime. Mr. Livergood thought he was qualified but he believed that safety and knowledge of the work sites was very important. Mr. Hawkins asked how a person could get up to speed on the roll-off task to be considered officially qualified. Mr. Livergood said that he wanted to have everyone on 5 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 his staff cross-trained and qualified to do everything with one pay grade, but that was not likely. Mr. Kruper stated that people had been asking for training to be a roll-off driver and could not get the training. Mr. Livergood thought that the issue was the definition of "qualification." He agreed that Mr. Kruper and others were qualified to drive a roll-off vehicle. Regarding qualifications for safety, however, if a regular Monday-Friday employee had been picking up a box on a particular job site and that employee was willing to work the Saturday overtime, if needed, that employee would be the "most qualified." Mr. Kruper said that the overtime would be restricted, then, to the other five people. No one else in the department gets any overtime and it should be equalized for people that are qualified to do the job. Mr. Hawkins asked Mr. Kruper how many people were involved in this. Mr. Kruper stated that there were 4 or 5 employees who had asked why they could not get any overtime on roll-off. Ms. Munley asked how hard it was to tell where the boxes were. Mr. Kruper said that they knew Friday how many boxes they have to pull Saturday and have a list of what has to be pulled. :if they asked Mr. Kruper on Friday if he wanted to come in Saturday, they could tell him what they had. :If he did not know where the box was, he could go to one of the other drivers and ask if there were any problems at the site. Section 1F states that: All qualified Sanitation employees shall be included in the overtime rotation, no matter what their normal daily route assignments. Mr. Livergood could not support 1F as written. He thought that it was due to a general overtime philosophy and the approach of the City. He thought that this kind of statement should apply across the board so it applied to plumbers, electricians, mechanics, and everybody and the statement "the most qualified" should also be a part of it. He did not think it should just be put in a Task assignment for solid waste, because running a roll-off was no different than being an electrician or mechanic. Ms. Munley asked Mr. Livergood if he thought she should put this in the regular overtime language. Mr. Livergood said if the intent was to keep the language in there, why specialize it to Sanitation and roll-off. Every department and group has functions that are best performed by certain individuals and why not make all overtime in the entire contract subject to rotation. Mr. Kruper thought this had been settled on Friday - that all overtime would be on a rotating basis. Ms. Munley asked to move on because they had to discuss it. She asked to talk about holidays. Ms. Munley stated that in Section 2, Holidays, of the Union's proposal, the Union had met the City halfway. There were a lot of unhappy people talking to them about working Meeting Minutes NCFS~O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 on Saturdays. The make-up day for garbage pickup is Saturday and it had always been Wednesday according to the contract. The Union was willing to work on Saturdays if the holiday falls on Wednesday, but they wanted to keep their Wednesday schedule for make-up day. She thought the public could understand this. If the public were told the makeup day was Wednesday unless the holiday was Wednesday, and then it was going to be Saturday, they would never have to change. They could get used to that statement from one year to the next. Mr. Kruper said that the Wednesday make-up day had been the reality in Sanitation from the beginning. This was an important request from the Union, according to Ms. Munley. Mr. Livergood asked if the Union wished to completely eliminate Saturday work. The Union responded in unison, "no." Ms. Munley stated they were saying that when a holiday had to be made up, they wanted to continue to make up that work on Wednesday unless Wednesday was that holiday, in which case they would make it up on Saturday. There are no residential pickups on Wednesdays and that is why it has always been the makeup day. The Union felt that doing it this way in the past had never inconvenienced the customers and they did not want to change to a Saturday make-up day. Ms. Munley stated that this was a major hot issue, and the Union wanted it as stated. Mr. Livergood stated that they needed the flexibility to be able to work a Saturday if need be. Essentially, it appeared to him that the goal was not to work on Saturdays. Mr. Livergood asked if holidays counted towards overtime and the Union responded that they did. Mr. Livergood said that if that was the case, what was the issue. Mr. Kruper said he had not worked on Saturday for ten years and then Mr. Livergood changed the makeup day and now he has to work on Saturdays. He, and others, did not like to work on Saturdays. He liked to have weekends off. Mr. Livergood said he would leave this issue to the negotiation team. Mr. Livergood thought this had to be made as simple as possible. He felt that when days of the week were made a part of a contract, it became confusing. He did not recommend it. Since holidays counted towards overtime now, he did not see the problem. He thought this was a larger issue. Mr. Kruper said he was talking about "sweat hours." If he had to come in and work on a Saturday and had been on Task all week and did not work 40 hours, physically, he would be working for straight time on Saturday. Section 2B states: "Employees who regularly work a ten (10) hour task system assignment day shall receive ten (10) hours pay for each observed holiday. Employees who regularly work an eight (8) hour task system day shall receive eight (8) hours pay Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 for each observed holiday. Employees who work on a holiday shall receive compensation as provided in Article 19, Section 2." Ms. Munley said that 2B was what was happening now. Mr. Livergood said that they did not have an 8-hour Task system. The Union agreed that this was not correctly written. Other than that, he agreed with 2B. Mr. Livergood asked the Union if they realized that the Task employees were getting 110 hours of holiday pay and the other employees were getting 88 hours. Ms. Munley acknowledged that the Sanitation workers were given more, but spoke of studies she had reviewed that highlight the Sanitation job as being the number 1 most dangerous job, even more dangerous than that of policeman and firemen. This is why they are treated a little bit differently than a carpenter or plumber. Mr. Livergood said that this was applied citywide - 10-hour employees get 10 hours of holiday pay. Ms. Munley said they were talking about Task because the physical demands of the job, the danger level of the job, the reduced longevity, and the ability to catch disease involved in this job called for a tradeoff and this was one of them. Mr. Livergood thought that the word "Task" should be taken out of this section since this spoke of something that was given to everyone already and there was no relation to Task at all. Ms. Munley stated that they had 10-hour assignments. Mr. Livergood thought this belonged in Holidays. Mr. Livergood said that 2C referred again to overtime. He thought that overtime should be paid for hours worked in excess of 40 hours, for everyone, per the Fair Labor Standards Act. This was his recommendation to the negotiation team, but he understood that there was a difference of opinion about this. Ms. Munley stated that 2C was in the Holiday article, but they just wanted to include it for Task. Because they were making a Task article, she pulled things out of the contract that had to do with Task and included it. She said they really did not need it since it was in the Holiday section, but it belonged with Task. She wanted to be clear, in the minutes, that if it was not specifically prohibited in the Task article, it was for everyone. If it appears in Holidays, it is for everyone unless it is prohibited in this Article. Mr. Livergood asked Ms. Munley to read the current Holiday article. Mr. Livergood said that the Holiday Section 3 differed significantly from the Holidays 2C in the current Task proposal. ];n the currently T.A.'d Holiday article, if employees work on a holiday, they get paid for the 8 or Z0 hour holiday, depending upon their schedule, plus they get paid time and a half for the number of hours worked. The way it is written 8 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 in the Task schedule is that if a Solid Waste employee comes in and works on a holiday for 5 hours, they get paid 10 hours at straight time plus then they get paid 10 hours at time and a half. He did not know why this would be done differently than for any other employees. Mr. Kruper said that the other employees were not on a Task basis. He stated that if they were going to get time and a half for the hours they worked on a holiday, they should get it for the whole shift since they were Task - even if they went home early. Mr. Livergood disagreed with that also, because he felt the City had a responsibility to be fair to all the employees that are governed by the contract. Mr. Osborn said that if the City allowed a Task employee to go home after they completed their 10-hour assignment in 6 hours, for example, on a regularly scheduled day, they should do the same on the holidays. Mr. Livergood thought they needed to see that as much as possible, all employees covered under the contract were treated in the same way when it comes to holiday pay. Mr. Munley asked Mr. Livergood how much profit the City made on its Sanitation services, and Mr. Livergood replied that they were "in the hole." Mr. Hawkins stated that this was true and that the City needed to raise its rates, particularly on residential services. Ms. Munley stated that the City's unwillingness to do anything on the overtime situation was a problem. The Union needed to come out of this with what they have now. The two items the Union needs are: 1) to have its Wednesday holiday makeup day back, and 2) to continue being paid for Task time when working on a holiday - not just the actual hours worked but the task time. They felt that they could possibly give a little elsewhere in the Task article. Ms. Munley asked if Section 1C could be changed by stating that the provision would only apply if there were a lack of manpower or equipment - when this person has to go back out and help someone finish. Mr. Livergood said that this was new. He could not speak for the negotiating team, but he felt that the country had worked very hard to get pay for overtime for everything greater than 40 hours. He felt that this should be a guiding principle in the City regarding overtime decisions. Ms. Munley said that this was why Unions existed - to supplement the laws and make them better. Mr. Livergood said that the Payroll department had difficulty in applying the standards when they varied so greatly. Ms. Munley said that the Union needed to discuss this in more detail. 9 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 The Union wanted to get a contract but they could not do so if they were expected to give up things that Sanitation workers already had. Mr. Hawkins asked what they would be giving up. Ms. Munley said that the Union was getting 2C now and needed to continue it. They also needed 2A. The Union already gets 2B so that was okay. She needed to discuss some of the things under Section 1 with the membership before going on with this to see if there could be some movement on the language. Mr. Hawkins said that Sections lA and lB were mutually agreeable. The Union wants to add in C that the provision would be triggered when there was a lack of manpower or equipment. Mr. Livergood thought this provision would be difficult because a piece of equipment could break down on a daily basis and perhaps it would only be broken down for 3 hours and the driver would be back on line before the end of the day. The way he read this, if this happened and he asked someone to help, it would be at time and a half. Or if a route were particularly heavy for a day they might have to call for help. That was not due to equipment or manpower. Mr. Livergood asked how long a piece of equipment had to be down before the provision would kick in? If an employee went to the dentist would that constitute a manpower shortage? This was too vague for him. Mr. Hawkins interpreted it as being effective if someone had to be called in to do a route for either of those two reasons (equipment or manpower.) If someone is going to the doctor for two hours, his route will be finished two hours later. The City wouldn't have to call someone in to finish his route in that case. Mr. Livergood said it was not a matter of taking over the task, it was a matter of helping. Mr. Hawkins asked if Mr. Livergood would assign someone to take over the task if a person were to be two hours late for a legitimate reason. Mr. Livergood thought that was a good possibility. He stated that the Sanitation workers helped each other all the time. Mr. Kruper stated that they helped because they were told to help. No one wanted to do it on his own. They were told that they could not go home until all the garbage was picked up. Mr. Livergood wanted to think that the City employed people that did care about their operation and did help each other, Mr. Kruper believed that if he were given a route, he had 10 hours to do it and he could do it within that time, but he should not have to go help somebody that was slacking off because that person did not feel like working on a particular day. Others feel the same way. The workers are told that they are not allowed to leave until all the garbage 10 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 is picked up. Ms. Lytle said that somebody could schedule a lot of doctors and dentists appointments so they would not have to do the work, knowing that someone else would have to do it. Mr. Livergood believed that it was the City's responsibility to the public to pick up the garbage, one way or another. Ms. Munley said that was fine, the Union was just asking that they be compensated for this when they go beyond their normal daily route. Their normal thing is to have their task assignment. Mr. Livergood understood and said that the negotiation team would decide about this. Item 1D is all right as is. Ms. Munley suggested changing 1E as follows: "Employees covering other employee's assigned routes for a complete 40 hour period due to vacations or illness, shall work the same shift for the entire period ....... "At Mr. Livergood's suggestion, Ms. Munley added the sentence, "Management shall make every attempt to give 48 hours notice for weekends and holidays." Mr. Livergood stated that this was all right if it were understood that it was 48 calendar hours, not 48 work hours. This would mean that notice on a Friday afternoon would be acceptable for a Monday schedule change. Mr. Livergood did not want to be so restricted in this notice requirement that management could not respond to the legitimate, last-minute requests of employees. The Union will talk about 1F. The Union needs Sections 2A and C. Mr. Hawkins asked if these were existing language. Ms. IVlunley responded that A was not, C was. It was stated differently, but the intent was the same - that when you work on a holiday, the hours you work are at time and a half. This is existing language on Task time, not just the time worked. Mr. Livergood said that to him, Task was more than just the process of picking up garbage. For example, at the end of the day, the trucks are supposed to be washed. Other items might fall under Solid Waste and Mr. Livergood felt that management had the right/responsibility to direct employees to do other things related to Solid Waste functions. Mr. Taylor felt this was a redefinition of what Task had always meant, which was "picking up garbage." What he thought Mr. Livergood was saying was that anything that was related to the job was the task. Mr. Taylor thought that keeping the truck clean was part of normal maintenance and would fall under pre-trip and post-trip inspection. He said that it had always been a part of their responsibility to see that the trucks were cleaned when they were brought in for the day. 11 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 Mr. Livergood stated that not every employee did that and there were some issues there. The City has to be careful to retain the right to say to an employee, "No, we want to present a better image. We want you to wash the truck now." Mr. Osborn said that the Sanitation workers did not want to come in from doing their route and be sent out to put up banners for the City or a tent for the Parks Department because a parade was coming. Mr. Livergood stated that they were talking about making all employees in the Solid Waste Division Task employees, including the 5/8 employees. That was in the City's proposal. City's Proposed Task Article Ms. Munley addressed the City's proposed Task Article. She referred to the statement, "Task employees will be assigned to shifts of either 8 or 10 hours per day. Employees will always maintain the same shift for an entire workweek." Mr. Livergood thought this addressed the Union's concern about changing shifts midweek. He thought this was only fair to the employees. Ms. Munley said that she was concerned that management would have overtime coming up and would change shifts. Mr. Livergood did not know when that would apply. Mr. Stone noted that the current contract read that it was in the middle of a pay period and not a workweek. Ms. Munley asked if there were some people that walked off the job, regarding the statement "Task employees shall be released from duty by the immediate supervisor. No task employee will be allowed to relieve him or herself from duty." Mr. Livergood said that there were some employees that left on their own. The City had been fairly lenient about that but he thought they might have to take a different approach. Mr. Kruper said they were supposed to tell the foreman that they were done with their route at the end of their route, but a lot of employees do not. They just come in and leave. The supervisor does not even know that they have left. The supervisor might have had something else for them to do and they are gone. Mr. Livergood said it was something that needed to be memorialized in the labor agreement. Ms. Munley said that the Union did not like the statement, "Task employees may be assigned duties outside of the Solid Waste Division in the event of pending, ongoing, or past citywide emergencies, special events or unexpected staffing needs in other departments." They do not want them answering the phone at the front desk. Mr. Hawkins understood that the Union did not like it but he thought it was important for the City to retain the right to assign the employees elsewhere in case of 12 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 emergencies. Ms. Munley said that was already in the Emergency article. The Emergency article says you can do this as long as the wages remain the same. She said that this Task proposal was much broader. They had already T.A.'d on the Emergency pay plan. Mr. Livergood said, "You are not hearing then from employees in the bargaining unit that they are concerned about getting all the assignments for special events and how come Solid Waste never has to do anything?" Mr. Kruper said that Solid Waste did do things for special events - they put extra carts out. Mr. Livergood said that everyone participated in special events to an extent. Ms. Munley said that to have non- electricians putting up lights might be a safety exposure. Mr. Livergood said that if the Union language prevailed and it was task-associated, delivering a front-load container to the Heart Walk, which is a Solid Waste function, would not be considered part of that task. Mr. Osborn thought that if it were directed as part of the day's work, it would be part of the task. Mr. Livergood said he could see the employee coming back and saying, "It's not part of my regular route." Ms. Munley asked if someone were doing this now. Mr. Kruper said there was one person that took care of containers. If they need extra containers at events, he is the person who takes them out and delivers them and has a truck for this purpose. They do not take a front- end loader to deliver containers because you cannot ride around the City with a container on the front of the truck and deliver it. He also maintains carts. He did not understand what Mr. Livergood was getting at. Mr. Livergood stated that he was looking for more flexibility and service level. Mr. Hawkins asked if it were Mr. Livergood's intent for this to apply to front-end drivers, and so forth and Mr. Livergood said, "to anybody." Mr. Livergood commented that special events were supported by the entire City. Mr. Roberts stated that most of the containers that they use were ones that they pulled behind their own trucks and they put them in place. He could not recall an instance where Sanitation brought extra dumpsters out to special events sites without ample notice to have them there long before the event. Mr. Osborn said that since special events were usually scheduled months in advance, it seemed that the City could include in writing the delivery of dumpsters to event sites as part of the daily task assignment. Mr. Roberts commented that they had set up the stage two days prior to an event - on a Thursday for Saturday. Mr. Livergood understood the position being related; however, he wanted to retain enough flexibility so that if a more extensive post-trip inspection was required, or washing of the trucks, that it could be done. Ms. Munley asked if everyone did that 13 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 now. Mr. Kruper stated that not everyone did that. Mr. Taylor said they also did not want someone working 5/8s on Task handling garbage and then when the route was finished, be sent to the trash crew to finish out their day. Mr. Hawkins said that in the event the City had a lot of trash to pick up, who in Sanitation could be called upon to do other things. He would have a problem hearing, that there was no one. Who in Sanitation could the City use to be more flexible? What positions? Mr. Taylor said, "You do not just take a person and do that. You can get volunteers. There are quite a few people who would do that for the extra money. Once they complete their task assignment if you want them to do something else, then pay time and a half and you will have volunteers. :If the City wants to have people do things after their task assignment is completed, they should give them an incentive to do so. :It is not fair to work a person to get a job done and then when it is done, saddle them with extra work to complete the day. The purpose of the Task system is to do the task until it is done and then go home." Mr. Livergood felt that it was a team matter and that their responsibility was to see that all the garbage was picked up and the trucks were taken care of properly before the job was done. He was very concerned that people did not want to help each other. Mr. Kruper said that it was usually the same employees that needed help, all the time. The other guys can do their own routes. Mr. Livergood asked if "Task" meant the individual's role or the City's functional responsibility to the community. When the residential garbage is picked up, the task is done. He thought it was clearer to look at it that way. Ms. Munley said that it was obvious that Mr. Livergood's department had a function to perform; however, the definition of Task had always been exactly what it is - a person works a 10-hour task and if they get it done in four hours, they are done. That is what a Task is and that is the definition of Task anywhere in the world where it exists. She thought that Mr. Livergood was trying to do away with the task system. Mr. Livergood said he was trying to redefine the problems that would arise from the language here when somebody was assigned to do something different. He was trying to get people to see that it was a functional task rather than an individual task - that everybody would work together to address that function as a task. Mr. Hawkins asked if Task had always been 4/10s, and the response was yes, for a long time. 14 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 Ms. Munley looked at the City's proposed Task paragraph, seventh line down, where it said, "Task employees may be assigned duties outside of the Solid Waste Division in the event of pending, ongoing, or past citywide emergencies, special events or unexpected staffing needs in other departments." Ms. Munley wanted to change this to say, "Task employees may be assigned duties outs/de of the So/id Waste D/v/s/on in the event of pending or ongoing City emergencies as defined in Art/de__ ('Emergency Pay). "And, delete the reference to special events and unexpected staffing needs in other departments." Mr. Livergood understood the Union's concern on special events. Mr. Stone confirmed with Mr. Livergood his understanding that a person must work over 40 hours to get overtime, in every circumstance. Mr. Livergood thought that this was the clearest way to administer overtime rules. The more convoluted they become, the more difficult; however, they would work within whatever system they were given. In the sentence that says Task employees shall be compensated for overtime at the rate of time and one half of the base pay for hours actually worked in excess of 40 hours, Ms. Munley suggested ending the sentence with, "unless otherwise specified in this article." Mr. Hawkins said this would lead to the Union's Task proposal 2C and this would be the only exception. Ms. Munley said they would have to talk about this during lunch. Wages Mr. Stone asked what the City Manager said about the wages. Mr. Hawkins said that the City Manager was not in agreement with the Union's proposal. Ms. Munley asked what the City Manager said. Mr. Hawkins related that the City Manager said no to 6% to base and retro. The 3 and 3 was still on the table. Mr. Stone asked what the rationale was. Mr. Hawkins said they had talked about it and they had monetary concerns with it - it was a big number and way above what they had budgeted. Ms. Munley asked if Mr. Bressner had a problem with not attaching the pay to the performance appraisal this year or was it a monetary concern only, because they might be able to fix that. Mr. Hawkins said he had explained that 3 and 3 represents "meets standards." That is what everyone would get - 3% if they meet standards. Ms. Munley then said, "What are standards?" Mr. Hawkins said that "Meets Standards" on the evaluation is 2 or above. Ms. Munley said the Union could not go there. She said that the City had heard what the people had said about how the 15 Meeting Minutes NCFS~O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 performance evaluation was being administered in the City. She asked about the 12% of the population that did not get a "2." Mr. Hawkins asked Ms. Munley to elaborate on what she meant by "Meets Standards." Ms. Munley looked at a chart and said it was for people as of February 1. Mr. Hawkins said those numbers might be different when the final evaluations come through. Ms. Munley asked when they would have the new and final scores and was informed, after April 1." I Mr. Hawkins interpreted Ms. Munley's proposal as "no one would fail," and she replied, "Not this year. Not under the circumstances." Mr. Hawkins would have to think about that. He was not ready to acquiesce to the point that all employees were at "Meets Standards." He was convinced that everybody should get 3% if they were at "Meets Standards." Ms. Lytle asked why all the 4% people should be penalized. Ms. Munley asked Ms. Lytle to focus on what was on the table and not proceed on her own. Mr. Hawkins brought Ms. Munley's attention back to the Union language, which calls for people to be re-evaluated after 60 days. Ms. Munley said she had given the City a proposal on Friday, after listening to 30 minutes of how poorly things were going now (regarding the appraisals), saying that the Union wanted to forego tying performance to wages this time although they would continue to work on it with the City. They might, and she had not confirmed this with the stewards, be able to say. The 3% is still tied to merit but what is your merit? Nobody should fail because the instrument is flawed. For public appearance the City would say that 3% was across the board and 3% was merit but in reality they were going to define what "At expectation" meant, which was different than the "2" that they had gone by in the past. This adjustment was being made because the instrument is flawed. Mr. Lee asked whether the instrument (the performance evaluation system) was flawed or the supervisor's administration of the instrument was flawed. Mr. Lee said that the instrument was not flawed. Mr. Osborn said that in the Police and Fire they were told how to get a "2", how to get a "3", and how to get a "4," but they were never told. This is left to interpretation. There are supervisors in departments who have changed the broad interpretation that was given them. It is the unit and the supervisors that are flawed. Ms. Lytle said that in Utilities, one supervisor has a mentor and the assistant supervisor has another mentor. The mentors are interpreting the program in two different ways. Do you justify this or do you justify that? There are two supervisors who cannot evaluate their own departments because their mentors are telling them different things. Ms. Munley said that in the information she had from the Police and Fire, it said what a person had to do to get "Meets Standards" and above and what would be "Below Standards." Tt says: Above = Consistently completes assigned activities and details 16 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 without exception. Meets Standard = Completes assigned activities. Below Standard = Forgets scheduled assignment. There is a clear path for the worker to walk out the door on October 1 and KNOW exactly what he has to do to get a decent raise. Mr. Lee said that "consistently" could be interpreted differently if there were not a quantitative measurement with numbers, 5X or 6X, for example. Ms. Munley said the Police and Fire were very easy because there were four job descriptions over there. Over here in this world it was too much work for the supervisors so the workers get stuck with this performance appraisal that does not tell them how to "get there." Ms. Munley referred to a previous meeting in which the City had been told about a person who asked how to get a better score and was given a nonsensical response that implied that this was not a pertinent question. Mr. Lee said they were not fighting that. Ms. Munley asked the City why it wanted the Union to suffer under this system for another year when they were being told they were willing to work with the City to make it a system that worked for people. Mr. Hawkins said he was basing his response to the Union on what the Union submitted to the City on February 11. Ms. Munley said that she had given the City another proposal verbally on the previous Friday. Mr. Hawkins said he understood the Union's proposal to be a 60-calendar day re-evaluation, which would allow the person to bring it up and get the raise accordingly. Mr. Hawkins said it seemed Ms. Munley was changing her position on that particular paragraph. She said yes, that when the system became a finely tuned machine, then they could give someone 60 days to improve. But if the whole system was just not working, how could they be expected to fix it in 60 days. It did not make any sense to the Union. Mr. Hawkins understood that but said he did not quite see it as that drastic. Ms. Munley said she understood that the City wanted to have Pay for Performance. Ms. Lytle asked the City if they would be willing to take an unbiased, third party look at the appraisals of the 10 people on the Union bargaining team and judge whether they were being evaluated in a fair and unbiased manner. Mr. Hawkins volunteered to do so. Ms. Munley did not see how Mr. Hawkins could do this since he had no knowledge of what they each did on a day-to-day basis. Ms. Munley said that the point would become moot and he would look at it and not have any more knowledge than whoever looked at it the first time. Ms. Lytle said that maybe he would ask questions. Maybe he would pull information out and do the process the way it is supposed to be done. We were told that it was supposed to open up lines of communication, make the employees and supervisor more understanding of the task. It was not just the score. 17 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 Mr. Hawkins said that his remarks had been based on the paragraph in which the Union had said they wanted everyone to pass. Ms. Munley said the Union was fine with people getting the 60-day evaluation, but not right now. Mr. Hawkins confirmed with Ms. Munley that basically, the Union wanted everyone to get a 3% merit raise whether they met standards or not. Mr. Hawkins said that if they were to do that, evaluations would still be done and people would still get a score, even if the money were not tied to it. Ms. Munley said they would have the 60 days to adjust it. The Union would be "right there" to see the substantiation for it. Mr. Hawkins said if they agreed to give everyone across the board a 3% merit raise, regardless of their score, that was money, but he wanted the score to "count." If a person is failing, they will have to deal with that. The City is not going to keep employees who are failing. Ms. Munley said she thought that would be all right with the Union because they would always be able to look at why someone got score "X" and challenge if it there was nothing to substantiate it. Mr. Hawkins did not want people going around saying, "This year the evaluations do not mean anything because even though ! failed, I'm getting a 3% merit raise.' Mr. Taylor said that the scores could stand as they were if there were no money tied to them right now, but on both sides, it was necessary to find out why a person was receiving a failing score. Mr. Hawkins agreed and said that it needed justification. Mr. Taylor said that justification had to be given for failing scores as well as passing scores, and not have managers just put a 2 down the middle so he or she did not have to do paperwork. Mr. Stone asked whether the City planned to use the evaluation instrument for the non- bargaining unit employees to determine raises. Mr. Hawkins said that the City planned to keep using the performance evaluation plan, although they were adjusting and refining it and could even possibly change it one day. Ms. Munley said she understood that the City was willing to work with the Union, and that even if the score was not tied to the wage increase this year it was still the score and would remain, unless the Union challenged it and corrected it if there were not sufficient substantiation on one side or the other. Mr. Hawkins agreed, and said that if somebody was getting a 1.5, that was a bad employee in his opinion. He wanted to know why he was a bad employee and why the City should keep the employee. Mr. Osborn said there were people who were getting 2.3 who wanted a chance to show why they deserved more than the 2.3. Ms. Munley said they would talk about this. THE MEETING RECESSED A T1:03 P.M. AND RECONVENED A T2:39 P.M. 18 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 Mr. Livergood was not in attendance at this part of the meeting. Ms. Munley stated that in the City's Task proposal, the Union agreed with the following changes. The Union wished to substitute "entire pay per/od" for workweek in//ne 4. This is in accordance with what it says in Management Rights. Also, beginning on line 7, the sentence beginning Task should be changed to read, "Task emp/oyees may be ass/gned dut/es outs/de of the $ol/d Waste D/v/s/on/n the event of pend/ng or ongo/ng cityw/de emergencies, as defined in Art/de on Emergency Pay." Regarding the Union's proposal, Sections A and B would remain. The first paragraph of Section C is withdrawn. In the second paragraph of C, the Union would like it to read, "Task hours sha//be use to compute overtime." This was later clarified to show that it would be the full task hours, i.e. 10 hours, not just the hours worked. Ms. Munley then said that all three paragraphs under B would be eliminated and replaced with the sentence, "Task shitt hours shall be used to compute overtime. Mr. Kruper reiterated his understanding that the whole 10 hours would be used to compute overtime. D was mutually agreeable as it stood. It is existing language and it is working. On E, the Union would like it to read, "Emp/oyees covering other emp/oyees assigned routes for a complete ,lO-hour period due to vacation or #/ness shall work the same shift for the entire period as the emp/oyee whose shift they are covering. Management wi// make every effort to give the emp/oyee 48 hours notice of this shift change." The Union withdrew F. The Union needs everything in Section 2. Holidays. Mr. Hawkins noted that under Section 2. Holidays, that A was new. Ms. Munley said that it had been in Holidays and she moved it to this article. It is existing language in Holidays. Ms. Munley said that the Wednesday/Saturday language on top of page 2 was new. She said that to move it from Wednesday to Saturday was a contract violation because it said the makeup day is Wednesday in the contract. The Union wants to keep it that way but they are all right with making the alternate day Saturday if the holiday is on Wednesday, which it would be in a few cases. Mr. Hawkins confirmed his understanding that on a Friday holiday, the trash would be picked up on the day before, Thursday, and then again on Monday. When Christmas Eve falls on a Wednesday, like last year, it would be a holiday and not worked. The trash would be picked up on Saturday, since Saturday would be the makeup day for Wednesday holidays. 19 Meeting Minutes NCFS~O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 Section 2B would read, "Employees who regularly work a ten (10 hour task system assignment) day shall receive ten (10) hours pay for each observed ho#day. Employees who regularly work an eight (8) hour task system day, shall receive eight (8) hours pay for each observed ho#day. Employees who work on a ho#day shall receive compensation as provided in Article , Section 2. The appropriate article number would be put here when the numbering is determined. Section 2C is existing language. Non-task employees working on a holiday get the actual hours worked. Mr. Kruper said that if a Task employee came in on a holiday and finished a 10-hour task in 6 hours, he would still get paid for 10 hours at time and a half plus the 10 hours holiday pay. Mr. Hawkins understood that. General Provisions Ms, Munley thought that there should be a General Provisions article. Ms. Munley said that she had given the City the Union's General Provisions proposal on February 11. In Sect/on 1, both part/es agreed to eliminate the statement that the C/b/ and Un/on agreed to share the cost of reproducing the agreement. She did not know if what was in section 2 was said elsewhere. The third and most important one was about maintaining the personnel file. Ms. Munley asked to change the length of time prior disciplinary actions would be retained in the personnel file from three years to two years. Mr. Hawkins said that would be fine. Mr. Lee commented that it was in the disciplinary documentation and he wanted to know why it was needed here. Ms. Munley said that in the one it was two years on a verbal warning or counseling memorandum. After 2 years it would not apply to progressive discipline. Mr. Hawkins agreed that this was the way it was stated. Ms. Munley then said but this one talked about disciplinary actions and gives us a timeframe for something to fall off. If you get suspended for something, after awhile it would fall off. Whereas the language that only talks about verbal warnings does not really apply to this. Mr. Hawkins asked if Ms. Munley was looking at this language as a blanket application where any discipline in the file would fall off after two years. Ms. Munley said it was their existing language and they had that time when it goes away. IYr. Hawk/ns said the ex/sting contract said three years. Ms. Munley said that to make /t two years would be cons/stent. I~lr. Hawk/ns said that was fine. 20 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 3ob Posting Ms. Munley said that the White Collar unit was agreeable to this except she requested that section i be tweaked to show that no job should be ill/ed until it has been posted in house. Ms. Munley asked if the City would be w/l/lng to post/ohs/n house for a week before go/ng outs/de, and the £/ty agreed that th/s would be acceptable. Ms. Lytle asked if an understanding had been reached about identifying positions as bargaining unit positions. Both sides agreed that people should be made aware of this, but it did not seem to be appropriate to put the statement on the job posting. The issue is covered at orientation for new employees and the employee interviewing for the job should be advised that the job was included in the bargaining unit. Mr. Hawkins felt that it was incumbent on the Union to get in touch with the new people. Movement of People Into and Out of Bargaining Unit Ms. Munley stated that this was still going on. Mr. Hawkins asked if it had happened lately and the response was positive. Ms. Munley said that titles get changed and people then fall outside the bargaining unit. Mr. Hawkins said just because a title changed, it did not always mean that a person was going to be out of the bargaining unit. Sometimes the title changes without changing the job description. The City will notify the Union if they do this type of change, particularly in midstream, but on October I they needed to be on the lookout for it. Ms. Munley said they needed to have something that could be agreed to between the City and the Union, in writing, that people are not just unilaterally taken out of the bargaining unit because the City changes what it calls them. Mr. Hawkins thought they could work together administratively to avoid a unit clarification. Wages Ms. Munley gave the City a Wage proposal article on 2/12/04. Section I of that article remains the same. Section 2 and 3 can be deleted. Sections 4 and 5 remain the same. On Section 6, the Union wants a Labor Management Committee but this is too wordy. Mr. Hawkins stated he had re-written that. Section 7 is what happens now. Mr. Hawkins said the City had agreed to Section 7. lin Section 5, it was stated that re- grades must be presented so that did not need to be repeated as it was shown in bold. Ms. Munley offered a Union Wage Proposal article to the City at this meeting and read it. She stated that Section i remained the same as the 2-12-04 proposal. Effective October 1, 2003, employees shall have the maximum of their salary scale increased by 5%. The intent of this was to give the employees room to grow. It raises the top. But, there could be a 1% lump sum bonus if the employee continues to be 21 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 "topped" out after getting this money. Mr. Hawkins asked if Ms. Munley wanted the City to look at this for all bargaining unit positions and she replied, yes. All employees shall receive a 3% across-the-board wage increase and a 3% merit increase retroactive to October 1, 2003. Employees shall receive a performance appraisal score that shall be their score unless changed through consultation or grievance. The intent of this was to have the score remain as it was unless the City could not support the score, in which case the Union would meet with the City on that person's behalf. She hoped it would not have to be a grievance. The Union shall continue to work with management to create a performance appraisal to be applied during the term of the successor agreement. Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 remain the same as in the 2-12-04 proposal. Mr. Hawkins stated that he would have to discuss this with the City Manager. They both shared a concern about reducing the meaning of the performance evaluation. Ms. Munley said that everyone understood that, but the Union wants a fair document so it can be applied to the wages next time. Mr. Hawkins said the City was perfectly willing to make whatever changes and revamps were necessary to get to that point. The rest of it comes down to money and where it would come from. Someone asked about the retro feature. Mr. Hawkins said that the way the numbers looked when it was calculated, more money has to be found in order to pay for this. Grievance Ms. Munley said that conceptually, the parties had agreed to this. Mr. Hawkins agreed and said the City had to get that back to the Union. Task Mr. Hawkins said he would discuss this with Mr. Livergood, but as far as he was concerned, he could accept it. Ratification Mr. Hawkins said that once the final document was distributed, an Executive Session would be scheduled to discuss it with the City Commission. 22 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Negotiation Session - Blue and White Collar Boynton Beach, Florida March 29, 2003 Ms. Munley asked if Mr. Hawkins had briefed any of the Commissioners on the progress of the talks or was it going to be a surprise that could overturn the progress made to date. Mr. Hawkins stated that at the last Executive Session, he had outlined where the City was going on the contract. Mr. Bressner now just had to present the final results and ask if anyone had problems with it. The Union felt that they had met the City halfway on a lot of items that the City wanted. Mr. Hawkins realized that and said it was a positive he could take to the Executive Session. Mr. Hawkins anticipated that the negotiations could be concluded on Friday. Copies of the Union's Wage proposal, General Provisions, Task, and the City's Task paragraph were made and given to all attendees. III. Next Meeting A meeting was tentatively set for Friday, April 2 at 11:00 a.m. IV. Adjournment The meeting was concluded at 3:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (032904) 23