Loading...
Minutes 04-04-05 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, APRIL 4,2005 AT 1:00 P.M. IN THE LIBRARY PROGRAM ROOM, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present: For the City of Boynton Beach: FOR NCF&O John Jordan, Assistant Director Human Resources Jeffrey Livergood, Public Works Director Sharon Munley, Trustee, Local 1227 Pam Welsh, NCF&O (Utilities) Skip Lewis, NCF&O (Code) Don Wooten, NCF&O (Police) Call to Order The bargaining session was called to order at 1: 10 p.m. A sign in sheet was circulated and provided to the Clerk for inclusion with the records of the meeting. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the last bargaining session were distributed and read. The minutes were accepted as presented. Union's Counter Offer Ms. Munley distributed the Union's counter offer. Rights of Employees and Management's Rights The Union is accepting the City's March 7, 2005 proposal for these two Articles. The Union would like the following documents to remain status quo. ./ Work Breaks (if applicable) and Compensatory Time ../ Promotions, Reclassifications, Transfers & Demotions - This Article would be exempt from any wage re-opener for the implementation of the pay plan. ./ Emergency Pay ./ Bonus Hours and Increases ./ Maintenance of Conditions ./ Collateral Documents Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 ./ Leave of Absence -The Union will accept the City's proposal of March 7,2005. Article 8 - Union Representation This language mirrors the Blue Collar proposal. They are accepting the City's proposal to use the Union Time Pool for those activities in Section 4. They are asking to exempt Union Stewards from having to use time in the pool when they are doing collective bargaining, grievance investigation and consultation with management, including Labor Management. Time spent on these issues would be paid by the City. This is the same language in the blue-collar proposal. Mr. Livergood did not see the need to have the same language for the white collar as the blue collar because historically there have been fewer grievances with white collar. Mr. Livergood felt that white collar should have fewer hours. Ms. Munley noted the Union's proposal provides that the City would pay stewards for collective bargaining, grievance investigation and consultation with management and labor management and the white collar does very little of this. Time pool hours would be used if a steward had to accompany an employee for the purpose of attending a hearing or responding to discipline action or investigation. Ms. Munley noted there are far less hours donated for white collar than for the blue- collar. She pointed out that during the last contract ratification, the blue-collar stewards received three times the amount of hours, compared to white collar. Therefore, the time the City gives these stewards would be minimal. Mr. Livergood noted during the prior discussions, the City proposed that all of the hours used by stewards would come from the time pool donated by employees with the premise that this is Union business that should not be funded by the taxpayers. He noted the Union's counter-proposal to create a one-for-one time pool was a good step to coming up with something acceptable to both parties. Mr. Livergood asked with regard to collective bargaining performed by a Union steward, if the City would be willing to meet the Union with a shared approach on the hours, would the Union be willing to (a) limit the number of stewards for collective bargaining, or (b) if there was no limit, roll those into the number of hours in the Union time pool? Ms. Munley pointed out there is only one steward in the white collar and they anticipate having another one. She did not think it was appropriate for the two bargaining units to have different benefits. Since there are only two stewards and there are minimal issues, this would result in nominal time given by the City. Ms. Munley noted the white-collar contract allows four stewards. Last year the City donated 100 hours to white collar and 200 to blue collar. Mr. Livergood noted Article 8.7 refers to the Union time pool form and felt the parties needed to agree to the form. Ms. Munley felt that the current form would be acceptable. The form would, however, have to be changed if the method of payment was changed. 2 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 Mr. Livergood pointed out the form included travel and questioned if travel time should be included. Ms. Munley felt that travel time should be addressed on an individual basis. Mr. Livergood stated the current form adequately addresses time because the time is when the supervisor releases the employee. It was felt that travel time within the City would be minimal in any event and Ms. Munley did not think this was an issue. Mr. Livergood felt that if the City would be contributing hours, travel time needed to be included. Mr. Jordan noted there have been instances where individuals have been released from work for Union purposes, and either left work way too early or returned to work long after the Union business concluded. Ms. Munley recommended adding language that would state anything beyond 10 minutes in travel time would be counted. Mr. Livergood said they could agree to this. Mr. Jordan recommended a form for each bargaining unit. Ms. Munley did not think this was necessary and thought it might cause confusion for payroll purposes. Mr. Livergood asked if the Union would consider limiting the number of stewards at negotiations, or if the Union does not want to limit the number of stewards, would the Union agree to put the time for collective bargaining into the Union time pool. He pointed out that it is possible at some point there would be four white-collar Union stewards and all four may want to participate in collective bargaining negotiations. Ms. Munley felt that all stewards should be able to participate in collective bargaining since this is part of their job. Mr. Livergood would be willing to allow as many stewards as the Union would like, if the Union agreed they would be part of the Union time pool. The Union's proposal is that the City would be responsible for time spent on collective bargaining and there would be four white-collar stewards. Ms. Munley did not think the white-collar bargaining unit would receive enough donated time to accomplish what they needed to do. She was opposed to Union stewards using their own time for Union business. Ms. Munley considered this a cost of doing business for the City. Mr. Jordan recommended that Union members be permitted to donate hours each October. Ms. Munley will be informing members of this procedure at ratification of the contract. Mr. Livergood inquired about having bargaining sessions in the evening. Ms. Munley was agreeable to having sessions in the evening. Mr. Livergood felt that these negotiations have been dragging on and it has been taking him away from his job for an inordinate amount of time. He would like both sides to push to get the negotiations done. Mr. Lewis felt that meeting every year took up a tremendous amount of time and having a three-year contract would make sense if the City wanted to cut down on hours used for this purpose. 3 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 Article 9 - Collective Bargaining This Article contains the same language as the blue-collar proposal. The words "by using Union time pool hours" in the Article 9.2 were deleted. The Union time pool donations are the same as the blue-collar proposal. This language provides that people could donate whatever time they want from three different banks and the City would match those hours on October 1st each year. The hours currently in the bank and the hours donated at time of ratification would roll over from year to year. Article 13 - Grievance and Arbitration Procedures This Article contains the same language as the blue-collar proposal. Ms. Munley felt they could discuss the language in Section 1 of this Article because she did not feel that the current language made any sense. If the City would agree to keep the Maintenance of Conditions Article, this language could be deleted. Mr. Jordan did not like the tracking process. Ms. Munley felt this needed to be discussed. Mr. Jordan stated that the tracking process could be when a grievance is delivered, a copy would delivered to the Clerk's Office, either in advance or simultaneously. Each step of the grievance process would be filtered through the Clerk's Office so the grievance could be monitored. Mr. Jordan stated that Human Resources could also do the tracking. Ms. Munley said that she requested the Clerk's Office for this purpose because whenever she has trouble getting public information, the Clerk's Office always stands up for the right of that person to receive the requested information. Ms. Munley would like it to remain with the Clerk's Office and Mr. Jordan agreed to this. Step 1 provides that either the Union or the employee could initiate a grievance. Mr. Jordan inquired why the language states "the Union or the employee." Ms. Munley explained that some people are members of the Union, but do not pay dues. Under those circumstances, the Union would not represent that employee. Mr. Jordan inquired if an employee's complaint is not supported by the Union, it would not move forward as a grievance and other alternatives were available for this employee. Ms. Munley responded that in the State of Florida, the Union does not have to represent non-dues paying members, but all members vote on the ratification of the contract. Mr. Livergood thought that the Union had represented non-dues paying members previously. Ms. Munley stated that if an issue would impact the remainder of the bargaining unit, the Union might represent that person. She pointed out that an employee could file his own grievance and could arbitrate his own case. There is language in Paragraph D of Article 13.4.1 that states the aggrieved employee and/or a Union representative has to sign the written grievance. Ms. Munley pointed out it is the responsibility of the Union steward to protect the agreement. 4 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 The names of the arbitrators were listed under Article 13.4.3. If an arbitrator becomes permanently unavailable, the party that selected the arbitrator could select a replacement and that replacement person would be inserted alphabetically in the list. The arbitrability clause is the same as blue collar. Article 14 - Basic Work Week and Overtime This is the same as the blue collar. Ms. Munley was agreeable to discuss trading comp time for stick time. Discussion ensued where comp time would count towards overtime, but sick time would not. Mr. Livergood stated the City needs to have ability to fairly control overtime. He also felt that they needed to encourage employees to save their sick time. Mr. Livergood pointed out that the City's proposal for this Article deleted the language that reads, "The working conditions of employees covered by this Agreement may differ from department to department, shall remain status quo." This was deleted because "working conditions" were not defined. Ms. Munley noted if Maintenance of Conditions were maintained, this language would not be needed. The City's proposal in Article 14.3 states, "For the purposes of overtime computation only hours actually worked count as hours worked." Mr. Livergood felt they could come to agreement if comp time was included in calculating overtime, but not sick time and striking Section 3. Therefore, Section 14.3 would read: "For purposes of overtime computation, only vacations, holidays, personal leave days and comp time shall be considered as time worked for the computation of overtime." Ms. Munley stated they would discuss this. If the Union accepted this language, Ms. Munley inquired if the City would agree to allow employees with perfect attendance to cash out a week's vacation or sick leave every year. Mr. Livergood pointed out that employees receive a bonus day for every quarter they do not use sick time. Ms. Munley inquired if the Union agreed to eliminate sick time from overtime computation, would the City accept the Article. Mr. Livergood felt that they would have to go by the City's version, because the Union's version is based upon a lot of the blue- collar discussions. Ms. Munley said it was the same proposal for both blue and white collar. Article 16 - Wages This is the same Article that was presented for the blue-collar bargaining unit. Mr. Livergood stated it was the opinion of the white-collar bargaining unit that the 2%, 4% and 6% raises were not acceptable. Ms. Munley stated they were not acceptable 5 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 because it equates to a 4% increase. Mr. Livergood noted that employees would receive a 2% cost of living increase, plus the performance increase. Ms. Munley has yet to be informed of the performance scores and how many people received 3 or more for a performance score. The Union's proposal is that employees that receive a passing score would receive a 4% merit increase. Mr. Lewis noted that in many departments the performance scores were all "2". Mr. Livergood inquired if the Union would agree to a pool concept. Each department would have a certain amount of money budgeted for wage increases for divisions within their departments and the increases would remain within that division. It may be possible that there would be some differential between groups, because a score of 3 in one division may get a certain percent raise, whereas a score of 3 in another division would get a different raise. Ms. Munley did not think they could address a reward system until there is an instrument to carry this out that would be fair to the workers. Mr. Livergood did not think there was anything wrong with the instrument and that Ms. Munley was referring to the use of the instrument, not the instrument itself. She pointed out that she has been talking about supervisors for the past three years that do not know how to properly rate their employees. She stated the instrument does not provide how employees could attain certain goals. Mr. Livergood asked if the Union would be willing to deviate from its counter-offer on wages. Ms. Munley responded they are open to discussion and just want it to be a fair process. Ms. Webb felt the performance appraisal scoring done by supervisors was done with an attitude of whether they liked or did not like an employee. In certain divisions in the Utilities Department, how an employee is liked is reflected in their performance appraisal. Ms. Munley pointed out during the last wage negotiations, employees received a 3% merit increase and 3% if an employee passed their performance appraisal. Any score above 3, the employee received an increase equivalent to that score. Mr. Livergood noted during the PSA negotiations, there was discussion that after the gO-day re-evaluation period, if an employee has not improved their performance, that employee could be terminated. Ms. Munley felt they could consider this, if the employee had been properly informed of what the directive was and this does not exist at this time with the current instrument. Article 17 - Promotions, Reclassifications, Transfers & Demotions Mr. Jordan stated the City has a performance improvement plan for non-Union employees, which is different from the one for Union employees. If an employee was not meeting expectations, they are told what those things are that they must do in order to meet those expectations. There are three 30-day sessions where the employee 6 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 would sit down with the supervisor during each 30-day period and if at the end of the three 30-day sessions that employee has not met expectations, they could be terminated. Mr. Jordan will provide Ms. Munley with a copy of this plan, which is in the City's PPM. Mr. Livergood asked Ms. Munley if the Union would accept the recommendations of the consultant's wage study. Mr. Jordan added that no one would lose any money, but there may be adjustments in pay grades. Ms. Munley said that she would have to see it first before she could respond. Ms. Munley was pleased that the City was performing a pay study. However, she requested that this Article remain status quo and to exempt it from implementation of the pay study recommendations. Article 18 - Standby & Call Back Pay The language is the same as the blue-collar proposal. Mr. Livergood felt that the two bargaining units were not the same. Ms. Munley pointed out that this bargaining contract covered Crime Scene Investigators, Fire Department employees and perhaps 911 employees. Mr. Livergood asked Mr. Wooten if he took a vehicle home and he stated he did when he was on call. Mr. Livergood noted the language mandates that the employee take a vehicle home. Ms. Munley felt it was important that employees on call have the ability to respond quickly. Mr. Livergood inquired why having a vehicle for on-call employees was critical. Ms. Munley stated it was important because the on-call vehicle would have the proper equipment and the on-call employee could respond as soon as he is called to work. Mr. Wooten stated their department is small and there are only three crime scene technicians. Whenever there is a homicide, all three are needed at the scene. It makes more sense to have a vehicle because it saves time on their response to the scene and they need to be at the scene as soon as possible. He pointed out that the cases rely on the evidence that the technicians furnish. Mr. Livergood questioned why the old language that provided an employee "may" was changed to a mandate. Mr. Wooten noted that Fire Inspectors are also on call. Ms. Munley was opposed to using the word "may" because this could create problems, especially in the Utilities Department. She was willing to include language that would state "except for Public Works." Mr. Jordan noted this should be discussed at the blue- collar session. Ms. Munley recommended language that would read, "Fire Inspectors and Crime Scene Investigators, and any other employee so assigned, shalL" Mr. Livergood asked for clarification of "any other employee so assigned." He would prefer using the word "permitted." Ms. Munley offered language that would state, "Crime Scene Investigators and Fire Inspectors shall be allowed to have a take home vehicle." The City was agreeable to this language. 7 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 Mr. Livergood inquired about the language that reads, "Standby shall be assigned on a rotating basis in compliance with the department's rotation list for a period of seven days." Mr. Livergood asked how this worked for the Crime Scene Technicians. Mr. Wooten stated he is on call for one week, and the other Investigator would be on call the next week. The third technician is still in training. Ms. Munley would assume that the Fire Department would work the same way regarding on call for the Fire Inspectors. Mr. Wooten stated he works 24/7 and even if he is on his day-off, he could still be called back to work. Mr. Wooten stated that he has been taking a car home even when he is not on call. Mr. Livergood stated this was not in the terms of the Agreement. Mr. Lewis stated that this was Police Department policy. Mr. Wooten stated it was important that technicians have a car in order to respond and to do their job. Mr. Livergood felt that the decision on whether an employee takes a vehicle home should not be mandated by the contract, but mandated by the operations of that particular department. Further, to allow an employee to take a vehicle home is for the benefit of the public. Ms. Munley stated when employees are home, without the use of a City vehicle, and are called back to work in the middle of the night, they are forced to take their personal vehicle, go to a particular place to pick up a City vehicle, and then go to the scene of the problem. Ms. Munley stated that fire and police employees are responding to emergency needs in the City and should have a vehicle for this purpose. Ms. Munley further noted that this only affects these two types of employees for this bargaining contract. Mr. Livergood stated that the language "shall be allowed" would put the decision upon the employee and it should be the supervisor's decision. Mr. Livergood would like the word "may" used in place of "shalL" Ms. Munley was opposed to this change. Ms. Munley would like to leave the Article status quo because it has always worked and she was opposed to having any benefits taken away from employees. Mr. Jordan recommended going with the language. If there was a problem, it could be reopened next year, if the contract went more than one year. Ms. Munley asked for a definition of "without stacking." Mr. Jordan meant that an employee could not receive $125 and $75. Ms. Munley noted the Union's proposal was $150 on weekdays and $75 on weekends. Mr. Wooten stated at times he could work a week and the weekend. Ms. Munley stated the City could make a counter-offer if it chose. With regard to call back pay, the Union would like this to remain status quo. Mr. Livergood inquired if a person were called back, if they would receive two hours minimum pay. Mr. Jordan stated this is the intent of the language. Ms. Munley was not familiar with how it worked in the City. Mr. Jordan stated there have been some 8 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 exceptions, but these have been rectified. If a person is called back to work, they are paid for the first two hours. If that person works beyond two hours, they are paid for the hours worked. Mr. Livergood inquired if an employee was called back to work at 9:00 p.m. and fixed the problem within 10 minutes and then went home, but was called back at 10:00 p.m. what would this employee receive for pay. Mr. Wooten responded the employee would receive the original two-hour pay. Mr. Jordan stated that some employees have not reported the time worked correctly. If an employee were called back for two hours, he could be required to stay for the two hours. Mr. Wooten felt that employees should have a sense of responsibility to report their time worked correctly. Employees that try to cheat the City should be appropriately punished. Mr. Jordan will reword the language. Article 23. Sick Leave Ms. Munley felt this Article could be TAd. There is new language that allows an employee three days to provide a medical note to return to work. Also, with regard to language as to who could confirm the sharing of sick leave, appropriate language needs to be added after the wording "must," rather than sending it to the Finance Department. Mr. Jordan will prepare the proper wording for this. Article 24. Workers Compensation This Article has the same language as in the blue-collar proposal. The language was taken from the West Palm Beach contract that sets out how an employee could receive the additional three months. Mr. Jordan stated the City liked this language. Article 26 - Vacation Article 26.4 should read, "Vacation requests of three (3) shifts or less must be requested and approved or denied within one work day of the request." Mr. Livergood thought it should be two workdays. Ms. Munley stated the two workdays would apply when it involves four shifts or more. Ms. Munley felt this article was ready to be TAD. Ms. Munley noted that there was missing language in this Article and she will put the missing language back in. Article 43 - Substance Abuse Ms. Munley would like language in this Article that an employee could come back to work when they were released by the doctor or counselor. Mr. Jordan stated this is already allowed by City ordinance. Even if an employee is released with the caveat that he must continue his sessions with EAP, that employee could come back to work as 9 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 long as he continues with the program. Ms. Munley requested that City Ordinance No. 92-51 be revised to state when an employee is released, they could come back to work. Article 50 - Distribution of the Agreement The Union will pay the City up to $300 to offset the cost of printing and distributing this Agreement to bargaining unit members. Article 52- Duration The Union is proposing a three-year contract. They would agree to reopen the contract for wages. Ms. Munley noted that uniforms still need to be addressed. Mr. Jordan thought the parties were close to agreement on this. Ms. Munley did not think they had to include the Fire Inspectors because they were addressed within the Fire Department. Mr. Livergood inquired if supplying uniforms should be at the discretion of the department, especially for white-collar employees. Ms. Munley stated the Building Department has an issue. The contract always provided that status quo would prevail, which included the inspectors in the Building Department would be supplied with safety shoes. For some unknown reason, the Building Department did not budget shoes for their inspectors. Mr. Jordan responded that the City is addressing this. With regard to uniforms, the Code Division would like to continue to receive polo shirts and jackets, but would like to purchase their own slacks and then be reimbursed. Mr. Livergood reported at today's budget meeting, the Departments were requested to hold their budgets at zero percent increase over last year because tax revenues did not go up. Mr. Livergood stated the purpose of supplying employees with uniforms would be to ensure that certain employees would be in uniform and identifiable to the public. This should not equate that employees receive "free clothes." Ms. Webb inquired about the practice of employees receiving polo shirts. Mr. Livergood felt this should be left up to the department. He did not think his office employees needed to be uniformed and identifiable to the public, but they still provide polo shirts to those employees. Most employees like to wear the polo shirts on Fridays. Ms. Munley felt if this were left up to the discretion of the department head, inequities would occur within that department. The Memorandum of Understanding dealing with the shoe allowance previously presented by the City was distributed and reviewed and then executed by Ms. Munley. Mr. Lewis inquired about the shoe allowance. Ms. Munley stated that employees would receive $190 shoe allowance when the agreement is ratified. Mr. Livergood added that they must be designated by the Safety Committee to receive safety shoes. Ms. Munley 10 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, Florida April 4, 2005 pointed out that Code Officers are not on the Safety Committee list. Mr. Livergood thought that Code Officers should be provided the safety shoe allowance. Mr. Lewis stated that the Code Officers did not want to wear safety shoes because they were very uncomfortable. Ms. Diane Reese, the former City's Finance Director, was directed not to pay for any shoes for employees unless they were safety shoes. Mr. Jordan stated the City would address this issue. With regard to uniforms, Mr. Livergood felt that the number allotted should be set out in the agreement itself. However, if a replacement shirt were needed, it would be replaced. Mr. Livergood pointed out that pants were not included. Ms. Munley noted it was stated in the Article that "On October 1, Code Enforcement Officers shall receive a $100 annual stipend in order to purchase 5 pairs of pants in a color specified by the City." Mr. Livergood felt it should state "Annual stipend to purchase pants in a color specified by the City." Ms. Munley was agreeable with this. Ms. Munley felt that the following Articles could be TA'd: Union Representation; Collective Bargaining; Union Representation; Standby and Call Back Pay; Vacation; Workers Compensation; Substance Abuse; Posting of the Agreement; and Duration. Mr. Livergood inquired if the Union would agree to eliminate sick time in the computation of overtime. Ms. Munley stated they would discuss this. Mr. Jordan said the City would bring back a counter proposal for the next meeting. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 3:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,-~ Î/,¡ . /It ad<.~ Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (April 7, 2005) 11