Loading...
Minutes 05-17-05 MINUTES OF THE WHITE COLLAR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SESSION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2005 AT 1 :00 P.M. IN CONFERENCE ROOM B, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present: For the City: For NCF&O Jeffrey Livergood, Public Works Director Michael Pawelczyk, Assistant City Attorney John Jordan, Human Resources Sharon Munley, Trustee, Local 1227 Kathleen Phillips, SEIU Attorney Pam Welsh, NCF&O (Utilities) John Pagliarulo, NCF&O (Building) Skip Lewis, NCF&O (Code) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1 :20 p.m. Article 12 - Progressive Discipline Mr. Jordan noted the City used the PPM language with some minor modifications that were underlined. Referring to Page 20, Section 6, the language has been changed to read "Disciplinary actions for misconduct older than a two (2) year period shall not be referred to or considered in any current disciplinary action. Ms. Munley inquired if serious or extreme misconduct would remain and Mr. Jordan stated it would. He noted the City deleted the words "except for unlawful misconduct" from this Section, but if it were older than two years, it maybe taken into account. Ms. Munley noted Section 6 does not refer to serious or extreme misconduct. Mr. Jordan confirmed it referred to "misconduct," not serious or extreme misconduct. Ms. Phillips agreed with the statement on how progressive discipline would be implemented, but she noted it was not clearly specific. Mr. Livergood felt it would be beneficial if misconduct was categorized and noted the Article contained general categories for the purpose of progressive discipline. Mr. Jordan noted in Section 12.4.3 new language in the second sentence has been added that reads, "These investiqations shall be conducted bv the Police Department in collaboration with the Department Director of the involved employee." The remainder of that sentence was deleted. Ms. Phillips noted there was language in the Article that stated if an employee did not demonstrate immediate and sustained improvement after the gO-day evaluation Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida 2005 May 17, period, they could be dismissed. She pointed out that this language had nothing to do with employees receiving their raise. It states if the employee did not improve, he could be fired. Mr. Jordan responded the point is to get the employee up to the level of where they meet expectations, which is doing your job. Ms. Phillips inquired if anyone was ever been fired after the 90-day period and Mr. Jordan responded no one was ever fired because they improved their performance. Ms. Phillips inquired who would determine if the employee demonstrated an immediate and sustained improvement. Mr. Jordan stated the supervisor would provide the initial feedback. If there were a problem, it would then go to Human Resources. Ms. Munley inquired if an employee would receive a written reprimand with a suspension. Mr. Jordan explained how this would apply under various circumstances. For extreme misconduct, an employee would receive a suspension without payor dismissed for the first occurrence. For a second occurrence, an employee would be dismissed. If the same employee commits misconduct beyond the window, a first occurrence would start up again. Mr. Pawelczyk stated the intent was that it would apply to employees who either (1) receive a written reprimand or suspension, or (2) receive a performance evaluation that falls below meets expectations. Mr. Jordan stated the intent of the Article is to modify behavior. Ms. Munley pointed out in the expired contract there is language that reads, "An employee who does not receive meets standard scoring for his performance evaluation shall be given a written document with instruction on what is required to achieve meets standards scoring and shall be evaluated in 60 calendar days. If they meet standards score at the end of the 60-day re-evaluation, the employee shall receive a wage increase." The old contract further states if the employee does not achieve meets standards at the end of the 60 days, he shall be allowed a second 60- day evaluation period. If an employee does not receive a meets standards score at the end of the second 60-day period, they would receive no raise. Mr. Livergood felt this should be addressed in the wage proposal. Ms. Munley also requested that the "meets expectation language" be added to the wage article and the written reprimand and suspension would remain in the discipline article. Ms. Phillips pointed out that this was punitive and was not related to wages. Ms. Munley felt not giving an employee a wage increase was a big enough hardship. Mr. Jordan explained the intent was to modify behavior and to have employees come up to meets expectations. Mr. Livergood recommended taking out the reference to the wage increase and to have the language read, "Employees who receive a written reprimand with a suspension, shall be placed on a performance improvement plan." The last sentence 2 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida 2005 May 17, of that section would be deleted. Ms. Munley inquired if "or face dismissal" was being eliminated. Mr. Jordan stated this language would remain. Ms. Phillips wanted to look at the language in Section 16.3 of the wage article to see how the language compared to the language in this article. Ms. Munley inquired how many people there were last year that did not bring their performance scores up to "meets expectation." Mr. Jordan did not have this information available. Ms. Munley inquired if this language was in any other contracts and Mr. Jordan stated that the fire, police and general employees had this language. Ms. Phillips inquired what happened to employees that do not receive a raise. Mr. Jordan stated if an employee does not improve their performance, they would not receive a raise. Mr. Livergood noted that the evaluation and related raise was for prior performance, which means an employee's prior performance cannot be changed. Ms. Phillips noted under the old language, an employee had 30 days to correct the problem in order to receive their raise. Ms. Munley felt that this should be subject to grievance and Mr. Jordan stated this was not grievable and is stated in the performance appraisal process manual. Ms. Munley pointed out that the performance appraisal language was not included in the contract. Mr. Phillips inquired if the City had a separate evaluation article and Mr. Jordan referred to the wage article. Article 18 - Standby and Call Back Pay Ms. Munley inquired how the City could insure that no more than 14 days of standby could be paid in any pay period. Ms. Welsh stated it only occurs on the second week. If an employee had 8 days of standby, it would go onto the next pay period. Mr. Livergood stated it was not the intent to pay someone 8 days for 7 days of work and, therefore, the language needed to be changed. Mr. Jordan noted that in some cases this is happening with blue-collar employees, but it does not apply to white-collar employees. Ms. Munley recommended adding language at the end of Section 18.2 as follows, "for that entire shift." The parties agreed to this change. Also additional language, "on any day" was added after Standby in this section. Therefore, Section 18.2 would now read: "No employee may be assigned to or paid for STANDBY on any day when the employee is in or scheduled to be in any leave status for that entire shift. " Mr. Livergood inquired if this would also cover sick status and was informed that sick would also apply. The parties agreed to this language change. Ms. Munley inquired if blue-collar employees could be on standby when they are on vacation or sick. Ms. Welsh stated that they could be on standby in those two events 3 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida 2005 May 17, and could be called out. Mr. Livergood requested that only white-collar issues be addressed. Mr. Pagliarulo stated he has been on vacation and was called back to work. Mr. Jordan pointed out that call back was different from standby. Mr. Jordan stated anyone on vacation should not be scheduled for standby. Mr. Pagliarulo asked what the rate was in Section 18.4 that reads all hours worked in excess of the appropriate callback minimum. Mr. Jordan stated it would be whatever the rate of pay was. Ms. Munley stated any time over 40 hours would be at time and one-half. Mr. Jordan pointed out that the rates of pay were stated in the section. Article 35 - Recruitment and Selection Mr. Jordan pointed out a bargaining unit member has been added to the interview panel as evidenced in Section 35.3.1.9.b. Ms. Munley asked if the Union could appoint the bargaining unit member and Mr. Jordan stated the department head would do this. Ms. Phillips pointed out the language stated it would be at the discretion of the department head. Mr. Livergood stated the department head would select the bargaining unit employee for the interview panel. Ms. Phillips was opposed to allowing the department head to have final approval. Mr. Livergood stated this was not the intent of the language. Mr. Pawelczyk recommended deleting the language "at the discretion" and put "selected by" in its place. Mr. Lewis inquired if the person would have to be a dues paying member and Mr. Livergood stated the person would be bargaining unit member. Mr. Jordan pointed out in Section 35.3.1.9 the word "and" was added after Sections 35.3.1.9 (a), (b), (c) to make sure all these sections would have to apply. Article 40 - General Provisions Mr. Jordan noted the language in Section 40.4 has been changed to read, "All uniform pieces and any uniform shoes required by the department to comply with departmental appearance standards shall be supplied by the City. All uniform articles will be provided through the City's warehouse." Mr. Lewis noted his supervisor wanted something in writing that he could require his staff to wear the shoes. Mr. Livergood stated this was the supervisor's choice and if Mr. Lewis' supervisor wanted his staff to wear shoes, he should budget for them. Ms. Munley pointed out that this is the only additional item that the white collar bargaining unit has asked for, which was shoes for the code officers. Ms. Munley would like it stated that code enforcement officers would receive shoes since their 4 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida 2005 May 17, supervisor is agreeable to supplying them shoes. Mr. Livergood pointed out that the language allows the department to supply shoes. Mr. Jordan noted the problem was it stated safety shoes and code officers are not required to wear safety shoes. Mr. Lewis pointed out the contract previously stated that uniforms would remain status quo and this was taken out. Ms. Munley referred to Section 40.3 that states, "For the term of this agreement, employees who are required to wear uniforms shall receive the same number of uniform pieces allocated to them prior to the ratification of the agreement. The cost of the uniforms shall be borne by the City." Mr. Lewis pointed out currently the code officers are not provided with shoes. Ms. Munley stated since the Code Administrator was agreeable to supplying the code officers with shoes, she would like it stated in the contract. Mr. Livergood thought the proposed language would allow the Code Administrator to budget shoes for the code officers. Ms. Munley would like it stated in the contract that code officers would be furnished with uniform shoes. Mr. Livergood did not feel they should dictate uniform standards for the department directors. Mr. Lewis noted that his supervisor included shoes for the code officers, but it was denied; therefore, he would like it stated in the contract that code officers would be provided shoes. Ms. Phillips inquired if it was in writing how many pieces of equipment employees would be provided to do their job. Mr. Jordan stated normally the department would provide its employees with this information and supply their employees with the proper pieces of equipment they need to do their job. Ms. Phillips inquired if this was in writing in any document. Ms. Munley pointed out in Section 40.5 it states the City shall provide seven (7) polo shirts to each employee on their anniversary date. Ms. Munley inquired why the City added language in Section 40.7 that reads, "if the City does not supply them with a car to conduct City business." Mr. Pawelczyk recommended that "car" be changed to "vehicle." Ms. Munley inquired how the City handles employees that use their own car for City business. Mr. Jordan stated they are reimbursed for mileage in accordance with the IRS Code. Mr. Jordan distributed two versions of Article 8 (Union Representation), Article 9 (Collective Bargaining) and Article 10 (Union Time Pool) for consideration. Mr. Jordan noted in Article 8, hours needed for collective bargaining was stricken from the union time pool. Article 9 provided if time pool hours were not used, the City would pay for two (2) stewards to participate in collective bargaining. Mr. Livergood stated 5 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida 2005 May 17, that in Section 10.1, the langua~e, "The City shall match the number of hours donated by the employees on October 1 S of each year of this agreement" should be deleted. Ms. Munley inquired in Section 8.3, second line, if consultation with management and Labor/Management meetings was paid? She felt these two issues should be paid for and stewards should be paid to engage in collective bargaining, consultation and labor management. Mr. Jordan recommended adding language stating "subject to Section 9.2." Ms. Munley had no problem with Articles 8 and 9. With regard to Article 10, the City deleted the restriction for bargaining unit members to only be able to donate up to five hours. The Union caucused at 2:35 p.m. The Meeting reconvened at 3:05 p.m. Article 43 - Substance Abuse Ms. Munley stated they were willing to TA this Article. Both parties TA'd Article 43. Article 18 - Standby and Call Back Ms. Munley stated they were agreeable with this Article and it could be TA'd. Both parties TA'd Article 18 and initialed the changes. Article 8 - Union Representation Section 8.3 will be changed to read as follows: "Union stewards will be granted paid leave to engage in collective bargaining with the representatives of the City and consultation with management, including Labor/Management meetings, subject to Section 9.2." The Union agreed to TA this Article with the changes. The parties TA'd the article and initialed the changes. Article 9 - Collective Bargaining The Union agreed to TA this Articles and the parties did so. Article 10 - Union Time Pool The Union requested Section 10.4 be changed as follows: 6 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida 2005 May 17, "Donations to the union time pool shall be solicited by the union during ratification of the agreement or any other non-work timEi' The City was agreeable with this additional language. Mr. Pawelczyk recommended that a notice be provided to Human Resources by the Union whenever they would be going out to obtain additional time. The second sentence of Section 10.4 was changed to read: "Donations shall be transferred from the employees appropriate leave bank within thirty days of the time of donation each year of the agreement during the month of October." The parties T A'd Article 10. Article 12 - Progressive Discipline The Union is proposing for Section 12.6 the following language: "Disciplinary actions for extreme misconduct older than a two (2) year period may be referred to or considered in any current disciplinary action." Mr. Jordan pointed out that after two years, misconduct no longer applies. Ms. Phillips felt many of the categories for serious misconduct and misconduct should be dropped because they did not apply. Further, Ms. Munley felt many of the categories were vague. Attorney Pawelczyk recommended changing it to a three (3) year period. Ms. Phillips recommended changing it to three (3) years for serious misconduct and two (2) years for misconduct. Ms. Phillips recommended revIsing the definitions for serious misconduct and Mr. Jordan pointed out that the City did revise this article and Ms. Munley acknowledged that a great deal of work had been put into the article. Mr. Jordan recommended adding "or serious misconduct to Section 12.6 so the section would read, "Disciplinary actions for misconduct or serious misconduct older than a two (2) year period shall not be referred to or considered in any current disciplinary action." The Union was agreeable to this change. The parties initialed the changes made to Article 12 and then T A'd the Article. 7 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida 2005 May 17, Article 40 - General Provisions Ms. Munley stated they would speak with the Code Administrator and the Police Chief regarding the shoe language for the code officers. Mr. Livergood inquired if it would be appropriate for the Union to speak with either of those individuals. Ms. Munley felt that Mr. Lewis should be able to speak with them. Article 35 - Recruitment and Selection Ms. Phillips presented the Union's proposal for this article. They took out the credit- reporting requirement and questioned why the City would require a credit report. Mr. Jordan stated this is done as needed and is not done for all new hires. A credit check might be done for a potential employee that would handle money. Attorney Pawelczyk noted that this would not be public record. Ms. Phillips pointed out in the Union's proposal she added language that preference would be given to current employees. She also added language that stated, "while insuring equal employment opportunity" that the City had deleted from the old contract. Section 35.2.4 has been added back in, which is the 60-day language that was in the old contract. Mr. Livergood pointed out it is not required that all vacant positions be filled within 60 days. Ms. Phillips added language back in that a job would be posted at a minimum of 10- days. She further added language stating, "The recruitment process maybe withdrawn for good cause upon notice to the union." Mr. Livergood felt that "for good cause" should be deleted and the remainder of the sentence would remain. In Section 35.3.1.7, they added a requirement that the tests be fair and valid. Paragraph C. in Section 35.3.1.9 has been deleted. Section 35.3.2.4 language has been that states the Human Resources Director would be responsible for reviewing recommendations to ensure fairness of the process and the union would be notified of any proposed deviation in pay. In Section 35.3.2.4, Mr. Jordan asked why the union changed "exceeds the minimum" as opposed to the mid-point. Ms. Phillips responded she did not change this language. In Section 35.3.4.1. a new sentence has been added stating, "A representative from the union shall be notified of the date, time and place and shall be allowed to attend to make a presentation to union employees at the general orientation. Mr. Jordan explained that all new employees go through orientation as a group and not all new employees would be union employees. Does the union want the City to do a special 8 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida 2005 May 17, orientation for union employees? If this were the case, Mr. Jordan noted there are six unions in the City. He pointed out that new union employees are provided a copy of the contract at orientation. Ms. Munley noted she has seen the meal allowance ordinance yesterday for the first time and questioned why she had to ratify it before it could apply to union members. She noted the ordinance was passed in 2003. Mr. Livergood recommended sending a copy of the Commission agendas to Ms. Munley. Ms. Phillips asked why the union was not notified of any changes that would affect the bargaining unit. Mr. Jordan stated he has notified the union of all changes that may affect the union. Ms. Munley said this had not been done in the past. She discovered non-union employees that attended seminars would receive a larger allowance than union employees. This was brought to the attention of the Human Resource Director at the time and he said that he would take care of it. Ms. Munley thought this has been corrected until she received the ordinance. Ms. Phillips asked if the union could just sign off on this, rather than have a ratification vote. Ms. Munley recommended including the ordinance number in the general provisions of the contract. Ms. Phillips stated the union would prepare an MOU and Mr. Pawelczyk stated this was a decision the union had to make. Ms. Munley noted they just had ratification for shoes and she was opposed to having to ratifying separate issues. Mr. Livergood inquired if the union had an opportunity to review Probationary Period Article. Ms. Phillips said they would address this at the Thursday meeting. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Transcribed by: ~V(L- ~ . tn ~""-- Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (July 12, 2005) 9