Loading...
Minutes 05-02-05 MINUTES OF THE WHITE COLLAR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SESSION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, HELD ON MONDAY, MAY 2,2005 AT 3:00 P.M. IN CONFERENCE ROOM B, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present: For the City of Boynton Beach: For NCF&O John Jordan, Assistant Director of Human Resources Jeff Livergood, Director of Public Works Mike Pawelczyk, Assistant City Attorney Sharon Munley, Trustee, Local 1227 Kathleen Phillips, Attorney, SEIU Skip Lewis, NCF&O (Code) John Pagliarulo, NCF&O (Building) Pam Welsh, NCF&O (Utilities) Call to Order The bargaining session was called to order at 3: 15 p.m. A sign in sheet was circulated and provided to the Clerk for inclusion with the records of the meeting. Article 29 - Funeral Leave The parties TA'd this Article Article 13 - Grievance Procedure Ms. Munley noted from the previous meeting it had been agreed that "or" would be deleted in the first line on Page 34 and in the second line of the second paragraph in Section 13.4.2. Ms. Phillips noted that "or" was supposed to be added to Section 13.4.1.0 on page 34 so that section 0 would read, "The signature of at least one aggrieved employee and/or a union representative..." Further, on Page 35, "either" should be changed to "neither" and the word "not" in the same sentence would be deleted. Therefore, this sentence would read, "Neither party shall utilize court reporters and/or written briefs." The following sentence was added to Section 13.4.2. as the last sentence in Step 2 to read as follows: "Failure to fully state all bases for appeal shall not preclude the employee or Union representative from raising such basis for appeal at a later time in the grievance process." The above changes were made to Article 13 and was then TA'd by the parties. Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida May 2, 2005 Article 17 - Promotions, Reclassifications, Transfers & Demotions Mr. Livergood noted the old contract and the City's proposal for promotions and demotions did not change. Ms. Munley inquired why all the language was underlined if it had not changed. Mr. Pawelczyk stated it was new language to be consistent with the City's PPM. Ms. Munley inquired if this also applied to Fire and Police and was informed it did not apply to them, but it did apply to all other employees. Mr. Pawelczyk pointed out in Section 2 of the current contract, it stated, "When an employee transfers to a lower position, or accepts a voluntary demotion, the employee shall suffer no loss of pay, unless the employee's currently hourly rate exceeds the maximum of the new, lower salary scale." This language is not in the City's proposal. Mr. Jordan pointed out that this applied only to voluntary demotions. Ms. Phillips asked if it was the City's intent to treat voluntary demotions or transfers the same as involuntary demotions. Mr. Livergood responded this was the City's intent since the employee voluntarily accepted the demotion Ms. Phillips noted the City's proposal requires a six (6) month probation for a promotion. If a person went from part time to full time, they are subject to 12 months' probation. Ms. Munley quoted the current contract that states, "New hires, or rehires, shall be subject to a one (1) year probation. Promoted employees shall be subject to a six (6) month probation." Mr. Jordan pointed out part time employees are not covered by the bargaining agreement. Ms. Munley was opposed to a person being placed on probation if it involved a lateral transfer. Previous language stated, "Employees may request a lateral transfer to any open position for which they qualify." She felt this would be a hindrance for employees that wanted to do a lateral transfer. Mr. Livergood noted when people request transfers, it is their choice. Ms. Phillips inquired if an employee failed their probation on a lateral transfer, would they be able to go back to their previous position. Mr. Jordan stated it might be possible if the position were still open. If the transfer was a "forced transfer," there should be no probationary requirement. However, if an employee chose to go to another position, there should be a probationary period. Ms. Phillips felt employees should be able to bump back to their old positions. Mr. Livergood responded that the City cannot hold positions open for six months. Mr. Pagliarulo recommended that there be some kind of timeframe for a person to decide whether they would like to go back to their old position. He noted it could take the City up to six weeks to fill a position. Ms. Munley recommended giving a person three (3) months to decide if they want to go back to their old position. Mr. Jordan cannot recall any employee that has transferred 2 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida May 2, 2005 wanting to go back to their previous position. Ms. Munley thought that a person should at least be afforded one (1) month to make a decision. Mr. Livergood pointed out that the City has already spent money on advertising to fill that position. Next discussed was the reclassification section. Ms. Munley pointed out that there is pending arbitration involving employees that were reclassed, but did not receive any compensation for the reclassification. Mr. Livergood noted the contract now provides that "Mid-year reclassifications must have the approval of the HR Director, Finance Director and City Manager." Previously, mid-year reclassifications were not permitted. Mr. Jordan responded if a person were reclassed, he would receive his funds when the reclassification is approved. Ms. Munley felt the language in Sections 17.1.1 and 17.1.3 was redundant. The biggest issue is that employees that take a lateral transfer cannot go back to their old jobs. Mr. Lewis pointed out this had been allowed in previous years. Mr. Livergood inquired what issues the Union had with this Article. Ms. Munley stated they were the sections dealing with lateral transfers and promotions. They had no issue with reclassification. The City stated they would discuss these sections. Article 35 - Recruitment and Selection The Union noted at the last meeting that Human Resources was not involved in the process. Ms. Phillips questioned the phrase in Section 35.3.1.1. that stated, "The recruitment process may be withdrawn for any position by the Director of Human Resources." Mr. Jordan provided several examples of how this could apply. Ms. Phillips inquired if there were classifications where employees had to take a test to apply for the position. Mr. Jordan stated there were some in this bargaining unit. One department that involved testing was Communications and other positions require a typing test. Ms. Phillips inquired if the City was intending to require tests for promotional positions. Mr. Jordan responded this was not the case. Ms. Phillips inquired if Section 35.3.1.9 meant that department heads determine whether the applicant pool was sufficient. Mr. Jordan stated this would occur after the interviews. There have been occasions when it was determined the applicant pool was not sufficient or none of the applicants were qualified for the position. Ms. Welsh felt that there have been occasions where decisions have been made prior to the interview process. Mr. Livergood thought this could happen with in-house employees because they "interview" everyday while at work and it is advantageous for employees to be in-house candidates. Ms. Welsh inquired if in-house candidates that 3 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida May 2, 2005 were performing the job now were ever told they were not qualified. In this instance, Mr. Livergood felt this could be an issue. Ms. Phillips noted the City took out the preference for hiring from within and questioned the reasoning behind this. Mr. Jordan stated the City still gives preference to its employees. Ms. Munley questioned why it was deleted since it was changed last year. Mr. Jordan stated that language was deleted because it came from Civil Service and no longer applied. Ms. Phillips inquired if people were ever hired at a salary above the minimum pay range. Mr. Livergood stated that this has occurred. In this instance, Ms. Phillips asked if this had been negotiated with the Union. Mr. Jordan responded that a person could be hired according to their qualifications, but the City does not go above the mid-point. Ms. Munley inquired if the City would be willing to come up with some language that if a person were hired above mid-point, it would be discussed with the Union. Mr. Jordan explained there is no benefit to the City to bring someone from the outside in over a qualified employee, unless it could be justified. The Union would like notices in these instances. Ms. Phillips noted previously job openings were posted for 10 days to allow people sufficient time to get their application in. She did not see a notice period in the current contract. Mr. Jordan stated many job openings are posted "open until filled" and could post longer than 10 days. The Union would like a minimum period for posting. Also, Ms. Munley would like it stated where the job openings would be posted. Mr. Jordan responded job openings are available on-line and are provided to each department. Ms. Munley would like this stated in the contract. Ms. Munley was concerned that the department director was in control of the entire process, and she would like more involvement by Human Resources. Mr. Jordan stated Human Resources has sat on many interview panels. Ms. Phillips noted there was no process if the first pool of applicants was not satisfactory. Mr. Jordan stated in this instance Human Resources would review everything that transpired and the department head would be asked to justify why they could not select a candidate. Attorney Pawelczyk pointed out reasons for the rejections would be in writing. Ms. Phillips noted this was not stated in the contract. Ms. Welsh inquired if Human Resources was provided with a justification for those persons that were not selected to be interviewed. Mr. Jordan responded that they were. Ms. Munley recommended blocking out peoples names when the applications are sent to the department director so they would not know the name of the person. She felt this would be a fairer way to select the persons to be interviewed. This would be discussed further after the caucus. 4 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida May 2, 2005 Article 14 - Basic Work Week and Overtime The Union would like Section 14.5 to remain in the contract; the City deleted it. Attorney Pawelczyk thought the City said they did not have a problem with leaving this section in. The only issue with this Article is sick time versus comp time. Ms. Munley recommended using "pre-approved sick days." Mr. Livergood also thought that sick time with a doctor's note might be acceptable. Mr. Lewis noted if employees used sick time, they would lose their bonus day. Mr. Livergood explained that whenever an employee uses any sick time, they lose their bonus day. Mr. Lewis inquired if "pre-approved" sick time would still affect bonus days and Mr. Livergood stated it would still apply. The parties will discuss this when they caucused. Article 27 - Bonus Days Ms. Phillips inquired about the change to this Article from the last contract and was informed it was Section 27.1, "Intent." Mr. Pawelczyk thought the City erred at the last meeting and noted, in fact, that there was no change to this Article. Mr. Livergood pointed out that the underlined language was the original language; therefore, there is no change to the existing Article. Since there was no change from the existing Article, it was not necessary to TA Article 27. Articles to be discussed during caucus were 14, 17, and 35. The parties caucused at 4:20 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4:40 p.m. Article 14 - Basic Work Week and Overtime In Section 14.3, the City is proposing the following language to be added after the word "sick leave": ''that is pre-approved and is documented by a physician's note upon return to work." Comp time would remain. Ms. Phillips requested that "or" be added so that it would be pre-approved or is documented by a physician's note. Mr. Lewis questioned why a note was necessary if the sick time were pre-approved. Mr. Pawelczyk felt that a note was not necessary because if the sick time was pre-approved the person is actually going to the doctor. The Union's proposed language for this Section would read, "and the employee's use of pre-approved sick leave, or sick leave justified by a physician's statement." The City agreed with this language as well. Attorney Pawelczyk noted it is not actually "pre- approved" and could create a scheduling problem. After discussion, the final wording for 5 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida May 2, 2005 this section was agreed upon by the parties as follows: "... employee's use of sick leave documented by a physician's statement prior to the end of the pay period." The parties TA'd Article 14. Article 17 - Promotions, Reclassifications, Transfers & Demotions During caucus, the City discussed how to keep a job open during a transfer or promotion and determined that keeping a job open for two (2) weeks would be fair and reasonable. During this two-week period, employees should know whether they want to remain in the new job. Ms. Munley felt two (2) weeks was unreasonable and people probably would not have finished the training part for the new job within two weeks. Ms. Munley requested that a person be allowed one (1) month to decide if they want to remain with the new job or go back to their previous position. Ms. Phillips inquired if the City would agree in terms of days and the City said it would agree to ten (10) workdays. Ms. Munley recommended language that would state, "Until the new position is filled, but no less than ten (10) days." The City could not agree to this. Attorney Pawelczyk pointed out if the old position were still open, nothing would prevent that employee from going back to their old job. The Union will discuss this. Article 35 - Recruitment and Selection Mr. Pawelczyk stated that the City would be making changes in Section 35.3.1.9 as follows: 35.3.1.9 a. At the end of this paragraph, after the word "specifications" the period would be changed to a semi-colon and the word "and" would be added. Also, at the end of paragraphs 35.3.1.9 b. and c. "and" would be added as well. 35.3.1.9.d. The language would be changed to read, "Determine whether the applicant pool was sufficient prior to recommendation for employment. " Ms. Phillips inquired who would be making the determination with regard to Section 35.3.1.9.d. that the applicant pool was sufficient. Mr. Jordan explained Human Resources would have the final say in this regard. 6 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida May 2, 2005 Mr. Livergood inquired why the Union felt that Human Resources was the ultimate authority in determining people's qualifications. There are many positions that are very technical and Human Resources may not have the expertise to evaluate those positions properly. Ms. Phillips explained that the Union wanted assurances that there was no bias in the process that could occur within the department; whereas Human Resources would be impartial. This provides a check and balance process. Mr. Livergood inquired if the Union wanted to have a process where an in-house applicant that did not get the position, could appeal or ask why they were denied the position in writing. Ms. Phillips felt if there were a grievance process, it would make the entire process more palatable. Mr. Livergood did not think this was necessary. The Union felt the City's proposal came with the possibility of bias. In Section 35.3.2.4, the Union would like to be notified if a person was offered a salary that exceeded the minimum of the position's pay range. Further, the Union would like assurances that current employees would be given preferential treatment. Ms. Phillips requested that the City's proposal on this Article be E-mailedtoher.Mr. Jordan also stated the City would look at the Article again. Ms. Phillips felt eliminating Section 35.3.1 .9 would solve many of the issues. Article 43 - Substance Abuse Ms. Munley asked why this Article could not be finalized. She requested a copy of the Ordinance, which Mr. Pawelczyk provided. Ms. Munley has continually requested that once a person is informed by the counselor they could return to work, they should be able to return to work. She did not want a person to have to wait until they completed the program before they could return to work. Mr. Jordan pointed out that the City has stated that once an employee is "released" by the counselor, they could come back to work. Mr. Pawelczyk noted there was a typographical error in the second line of Article 43 and the word "Ordnance" should be "Ordinance." Mr. Pawelczyk would prefer to reference the section number of the Code, rather than referring to Ordinance No. 92-51. The section of the Code that addressed this is Section 2-19 of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Mr. Livergood pointed out that the contract cannot supersede the City's Code and in the Code it states, "Upon successful completion, the employee may return to work." 7 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida May 2, 2005 Next Meeting Dates: Tuesday, May 17, 2005,1:00 p.m., Conference Room B Thursday, May 19, 2005, 1 :00 p.m., Conference Room B Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,.k~ ~, )u ~.~.J Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (May 5, 2005) 8