Minutes 03-07-05
MINUTES OF THE BLUE AND WHITE COLLAR COMBINED COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING SESSION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF
FIREMEN & OILERS AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005 AT 1 :00 P.M. IN THE UTILITIES
CONFERENCE ROOM, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Present:
For the City of Boynton Beach:
Jeff Livergood, Public Works Director
John Jordan, Assistant Director of Human Resources
Michael Pawelczyk, Assistant City Attorney
For NCF&O:
Sharon Munley, Trustee, Local 1227
Bob Kruper, Union Steward (Blue Collar)
Skip Lewis, Union Steward (White Collar)
Jim Macintyre, Union Steward (White Collar) (arrived at 3:15 p.rn.)
Jeff Mark, Union Steward (White Collar)
Mike Osborn, Union Steward (Blue Collar)
John Pagliarulo, Union Steward (White Collar)
Don Roberts, Union Steward (Blue Collar)
Rick Smith, Union Steward (Blue Collar)
Mike Taylor, Union Steward (Blue Collar)
Palm Welch, Union Steward (White Collar)
Call to Order
The bargaining session was called to order at 1 :28 p.m. A sign-in sheet was circulated
and presented to the Clerk for inclusion with the record of the meeting.
Memorandum of Understanding
· Shoe Allowance
Ms. Munley pointed out that when the current contract was negotiated, the Union tried
to get a three-year contract. When the contract became a one-year contract, the three
dates were deleted and October 1, 2003 through October 1, 2004 was inserted in its
place. Since that time, the contract has expired. The contract provided during the
contract dates that employees would receive $175 shoe allowance.
Ms. Munley stressed that employees need shoes, but the contract has expired. Past
practice was that employees would receive a shoe allowance each year. As a result, the
Union Citvhas prepared a Memorandum of Understanding to address this problem so
r'"
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
employees could get their shoes after October 1, 2004. The Memorandum of
Understanding provides that employees designated by the City's Safety Committee that
are eligible to receive a one-time shoe allowance of $190 would be in effect between
October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. Ms. Munley is not disputing the $190
allocated for this purpose.
Attorney Pawelczyk stated that the shoe policy is not retroactive and would not take
effect until the new contract is approved. Ms. Munley disputed this because she felt that
the dates remained status quo. Mr. Taylor was under the impression that during the
prior negotiations, it was made clear there would be no problem for employees to get
paid for their shoe purchases. Attorney Pawelczyk pointed out that employees are still
covered under the MOU and he did not think there was any need to make this provision
retroactive.
Ms. Munley noted this provision was in both contracts. In the Blue Collar contract it was
Article 38 and in the White Collar contract, it was Article 35. Attorney Pawelczyk will
make the necessary changes in Paragraph 4 of the MOU to allow employees to receive
their $190 shoe allowance for this year only.
Ms. Munley confirmed that employees eligible for the shoe reimbursement would be
receiving a check for $190 without submitting any receipts. Mr. Jordan stated that this
was correct. When Ms. Munley receives the changes, she will forward them to their
attorney for review. If she does not contact the City, it can be assumed that the changes
are acceptable to the Union.
Mr. Jordan stated the City would also be discussing (1) restricted sick leave, (2)
language dealing with leave of absence and (3) job posting.
Disciplinary Actions
The Union's counter-offer on Disciplinary Actions was distributed. It was noted that the
City would be presenting its wage proposal.
Ms. Munley stated there was language missing in their proposal and referred the parties
to page 4, in the last bulleted paragraph reading "Revocation of any required job-related
licenses or certification."
Ms. Munley stated that the language reading "Failure to notify the City of"
should be inserted before "R" (r)evocation."
On the last page, in the next to the last bulleted paragraph reading "Conviction of a
felony while employed by the City," should have the following language added to it:
"Failure to report a conviction."
The City took the opportunity to review the document. Ms. Munley felt that this
document was a huge step forward from last year. Mr. Livergood inquired if any other
2
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
for smoking or a written counseling for the smoking. Attorney Pawelczyk equated these
to be separate incidences. Mr. Osborn stated the employee should receive a written
reprimand for a second infraction. However, if an employee committed three infractions
at one time, it would be counted as one incident. This is the intent of the language the
union submitted.
Ms. Munley noted the intent of their language is that after 12 months an employee's first
infraction would disappear. Therefore, if an employee received six infractions within one
year that employee would be dismissed.
Ms. Munley commended the stewards for preparing the Disciplinary Article, but
questioned the definition if "Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information" should
be considered "extreme misconduct."
Attorney Pawelczyk felt that this could apply if an employee disclosed information
regarding security procedures for the water plants. Ms. Munley was not aware that
employees were privy to this type of confidential information. Mr. Osborn confirmed that
this did apply to certain employees. If this were the case, Ms. Munley felt that it needed
better clarification. Mr. Osborn stated that this language came from the City's PPM.
Mr. Livergood noted the City's policy is if an employee violates the City's harassment
policy, that employee could be terminated. Ms. Munley inquired what the City's
harassment policy was. Mr. Taylor responded that there are different levels of
harassment. Mr. Jordan stated harassment falls under Title VII.
Mr. Jordan stated the City would review what the Union presented and requested Mr.
Osborn E-mail it to him.
Mr. Livergood would like further clarification on "stacking." Ms. Munley felt that stacking
should apply to a "like" incident and the definitions need clarification. Attorney
Pawelczyk would like to have definitions for conduct unbecoming and serious
misconduct. He agreed that certain misconducts such as poor quality work or not
going to lunch are two separate incidents and should not be stacked. However, if an
employee received nine infractions and received counseling for each one and commits
those nine infractions a second time, this equates to 18 infractions and all he has
received to date is a reprimand. If this same employee abused his lunch break for the
second time, he would only receive a one-day suspension, even though he has 19
infractions. Attorney Pawelczyk stated something was not right and deserved further
discussion. He felt that the City would want to check this employee's performance
before only doling out a one-day suspension for all these infractions.
Mr. Livergood asked what the union's position was with regard to licensing and what
would be the result if an employee had his license revoked, but neglected to inform the
City, or committed a felony without letting the City know. If an employee is required to
have a license as part of his job and loses that license, shouldn't that employee be
suspended until his license is reinstated? What about employees that are required to
4
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
have an operator's license and lose that license, how could that employee perform his
work?
Mr. Taylor responded on occasions, when employees lose their operator's license, they
have been reassigned to other positions until their license is reinstated. Mr. Livergood
felt that there needed to be limits as to how long this type of situation could exist. Mr.
Lewis pointed out that there have been employees that have lost their license to drive
and other employees have assisted with that person's driving responsibilities until their
license was reinstated.
Mr. Taylor pointed out that the City should try to keep good employees who may have
had a situation that caused them to lose their licenses. However, they may want to
consider putting a time limit on how long the City would carry that person. Also, Mr.
Livergood stated it was critical that the City be informed whenever an employee loses
their license.
Mr. Livergood next brought up insubordination in the workplace and how to interpret it.
He felt that if an employee refused to do something that he was told to do and had no
valid reason not to do what his supervisor requested, he considered this
insubordination. Mr. Osborn noted that there have been occasions when supervisors
have told employees to do a certain task and when that employee questioned why they
are being asked to do it, the supervisor considered that insubordination. This was not a
refusal to do the job, but employees are considered insubordinate for merely asking why
they are being requested to do something.
Ms. Munley agreed that if an employee refused to perform a directive from his
supervisor that is insubordination. Attorney Pawelczyk did not think supervisors had to
justify why they were asking an employee to perform a certain task, but he did not think
it was insubordination if an employee had a suggestion to do the task a better way. She
suggested that a definition of "insubordination" be included in the Discipline Article. She
recommended language along the lines of "willfully refusing to do a directive from the
supervisor." Mr. Taylor pointed out that certain factors have to be considered and at
times an employee could refuse to perform a directive if there was a safety issue
involved. In that instance, Mr. Jordan stated the issue would have to be escalated
beyond the supervisor. Ms. Munley felt that safety was an area when an employee
could refuse to do a certain task.
Mr. Jordan said the City would bring back its counteroffer on the Discipline Article.
Compensatory Time
Ms. Munley recalled that the union was okay with removing Sections 3 and 5 and
leaving the remainder of that Article status quo.
Attorney Pawelczyk's notes indicated that the union would come back with something
"creative." Ms. Munley did not think this would apply to comp time. Mr. Jordan recalled
5
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
that Ms. Munley had something from another contract that she wanted to introduce into
this contract.
Promotions. Reclassifications. Transfers and Demotions
Ms. Munley recommended moving on until members had an opportunity to review this
article.
Recruitment and Selection
Ms. Munley asked the City to provide an explanation of how this would work. Ms.
Munley noted that on Page 68 in Article 37.3.1.9 b. it read:
"Prepare an interview schedule and conduct interviews. Human
Resources may assist in scheduling, contacting, or co-interviewing of
applicants at the request of the department."
Ms. Munley inquired if the interview process was left entirely up to the department and
questioned if there were guidelines for this process. Mr. Jordan responded that Human
Resources does provide "how to conduct an interview training" for supervisors. Ms.
Munley felt that this meant Human Resources was not unaware of how interviews were
being conducted if they were not part of the interview.
Ms. Munley asked why Human Resources was not more involved in the interview
process. Mr. Jordan responded it would depend upon the position because there are
certain positions that require expertise that Human Resource personnel does not have,
for example hiring a water plant chief. In this particular instance, it would be the
department and people that are experts in this area that should be doing the interview.
Ms. Munley said there have been problems with blue-collar employees being promoted
and there are inequities in the system when it comes to those employees being
promoted. Ms. Munley felt that union representatives should be involved in the interview
process. Mr. Jordan did not think having Human Resources involved in the interviews
would be of any benefit.
Mr. Osborn inquired about the process of determining whether an applicant is
interviewed. Mr. Jordan explain that Human Resources reviews the applications to
determine if the applicant meets the minimum qualifications and then forwards the
qualified applicants to the department.
Ms. Welsh felt that Human Resources should be involved in the process because
employees have been told that they are not qualified to apply for a position unless they
can furnish a written statement documenting why they are qualified for an interview. Ms.
Welch pointed out when the Administrative Assistant position in Utilities became
available, she was informed that she would not qualify for an interview unless she could
6
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
document why she was qualified for an interview. Mr. Jordan responded that this is not
part of the recruitment and selection process.
Mr. Jordan stated he should have been informed of this situation so he could have
addressed it. Ms. Welch had the impression that the supervisor had gone through
Human Resources and this is how it was done.
Mr. Pagliarulo added that when there are openings in his department, it appears that the
department, not Human Resources, handles the selection process. He has seen
qualified, licensed applicants not being selected for a position; whereas, people with no
qualifications would get the job because they were a "friend of a friend." Mr. Jordan
said he could not comment on this until all the facts were known. The process is set up
so that the best person for the job would be selected. Mr. Osborn stated when it comes
to hiring in the City, the "good ole boy" practice prevails.
Promotions
Ms. Munley would like it set out clearly and precisely the steps that bargaining unit
members need to follow in order to be promoted. Mr. Jordan noted that promotions
were addressed in Article 19.
Ms. Welch inquired once Human Resources turns the applications over to the
department, does Human Resources keep track of who is being interviewed and who
was turned down. Mr. Jordan responded that supervisors are required to provide
feedback to Human Resources why they did not interview certain applications and the
justifications for doing so.
Regarding voluntary demotion, in the current contract a person would not lose money
when requesting a voluntary demotion. The City is now proposing that a voluntary
demotion would result in a pay decrease, to which Ms. Munley was opposed.
Previously, a lateral transfer did not require a probationary period. Probationary periods
only applied to promotions and entry level.
Ms. Munley was opposed to the ~anguage under Reclassification where it stated
"Positions may be considered for reclassification only upon written request of the
Department Head, including detailed justification." Ms. Munley would like employees to
be able to request that their position be reclassified. This has been brought to the City
previously and the union was informed that the request had to go through the annual
budget process and it just got lost in the shuffle.
Ms. Munley asked for clarification of the language in Article 19.5.2 that read _
"Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the probationary
employee will be considered a regular employee."
7
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Mr. Jordan responded that the employee is no longer a probationary employee. Ms.
Munley asked how this would apply legally to a person who has worked ten years with
the City and is promoted, but has to be in a probationary status. Could this person be
fired? Civil Service used to allow an employee who did not pass probation to go back to
their old job, but this no longer exists. Mr. Taylor stated that this language needed to be
put back in. Mr. Jordan is not sure how this situation has been handled since it has not
happened since he came on board.
Ms. Munley requested that Reclassification be included with Promotion and she would
like all the promotion items in one article.
Regarding lateral transfer, Ms. Munley was not aware there was a probationary period
for a lateral transfer. She was opposed to the language that people would lose money if
they were demoted. Mr. Taylor responded if the demotion resulted from a disciplinary
action, there was a reduction in pay. However, if a person requested a voluntary
demotion, there was no loss of pay. Mr. Taylor also pointed out that even if the
demotion was involuntary, and did not involve a disciplinary issue, there was no loss of
pay.
If an employee received a punitive demotion, it would result in a loss of pay as stated in
the City's proposal. She felt the union's proposal was better and she would be willing to
require a six-month probation period. Ms. Munley will present a revised version.
Re-addressing Article 37 (Recruitment and Selection), Ms. Munley stated this Article
needed a lot of work and needed to be revisited. She asked the City what the intent of
their proposal was. Mr. Jordan responded that this is the process that the City followed.
Mr. Smith stated that the job listings are not properly posted and Ms. Munley stated this
needed to be addressed.
Mr. Livergood pointed out that it was not a departmental responsibility to post jobs. Mr.
Jordan stated Human Resources posted all openings. Mr. Smith was aware that many
departments have bulletin boards where jobs are posted. Mr. Livergood pointed out that
all job openings are posted on the main bulletin board in Public Works. It was not
possible to post the job openings in every single shop. Mr. Jordan pointed out that all
job openings are placed in the rack in City Hall Lobby. Ms. Munley requested that each
Department Head be furnished with the job openings on a regular basis. Mr. Jordan
stated that all job openings are sent to all Department Heads with a request that they be
placed where employees could view them. Ms. Munley recommended that there be a
rack at every City location where job listings could be posted.
Ms. Munley stated there needed to be a process for job recruitment. She would like the
City to consider allowing a union representative to sit in on the interview process. Some
union stewards felt that there was favoritism in certain departments when it came to
promotions. Mr. Osborn responded the union is not trying to tell them whom they
should hire, but they would like to have a person who is fair and objective to oversee the
process.
8
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
The union is proposing that language be included in this Article that would (1) allow a
union representative to sit in on the interviews. Secondly, a process would be in place
where a certain percentage of people that finished in the top percentile would be
selected for the position.
Recess was declared at 2:55 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:10 p.m.
City's Waae Proposal
Mr. Jordan presented the City's wage proposal (Article 18), page 33, as follows:
./ 2% market adjustment retroactive to October 1 st.
./ As of April 1 st employees would receive wage increases based upon their
Performance Evaluations in addition to their base wage.
./ Currently wage increases, based upon performance evaluations, were 2%, 3%,
or 4%.
./ The new proposal for wage increases, based upon performance evaluations,
would be 2%, 4% or 6%.
./ If the wage increase goes beyond the salary range for that position, the
employee would receive the market adjustment increase and, if applicable, the
performance evaluation wage increase, in a lump-sum payment.
Mr. Osborn noted that he has already received his evaluation and questioned if he
would have to be re-evaluated since the percentages have changed. Mr. Jordan
responded in this case the numbers would be redone, not the entire performance
evaluation.
Ms. Munley inquired what percentage would be "meets standards" and who would be
eligible to receive 4%, which would probably apply to most employees. Mr. Jordan
stated anyone that received over a 3% on their evaluation would receive a 4% increase.
Mr. Livergood reviewed how these percentages would work when determining a
person's performance evaluation increase.
Ms. Munley inquired if all employees have received their performance appraisals. She
requested a list of the scores for all employees. Mr. Jordan noted that the performance
appraisals are not due until the end of the week; therefore, he did not have this
information available.
Ms. Munley inquired if employees received performance improvement plans. Mr. Jordan
stated they are available, but they have not been utilized for employees. Mr. Taylor
noted the union had requested that employees that received below 2% last year be
provided with a plan to improve their scores so they could receive last year's wage
increase, which has not yet happened. Mr. Smith stated he has at least 10 grievances
relating to this issue that have not been resolved.
9
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Ms. Munley noted that last year if an employee did not receive a "meets standards"
score, they would be re-evaluated in 60 days. At that point, if an employee did "meet
standards" they would receive their raise retroactive to April 1 st. However, if an
employee did not "meet standards," they would be re-evaluated again and would not
receive a raise until the date they "met standards." Ms. Munley inquired how many
employees fell into this category last year. Mr. Jordan responded that those employees
were provided an opportunity to improve their job performance in order to "meet
standards."
Mr. Osborn thought that it was supposed to be a yearlong process to keep employees
informed so they could have an opportunity to "meet standards" and this process has
not worked. Ms. Munley noted that the process has not been fixed and now the process
is being made even harder for people to improve.
Mr. Marks reported that employees at the beach were provided with guidelines to justify
their raises, which he provided to Mr. Jordan. He stated that Mr. Majors, at a meeting,
told employees that he purposely made it difficult for employees to receive a "2".
Therefore, if an employee received "2," it meant they were doing a good job. In April of
last year, the lifeguards spoke with management and provided their input regarding the
standards of performance. Management did not listen to any of their concerns and
made inconsistent changes to the document. In addition, employees were not permitted
to provide their comments. Mr. Marks also felt that management changed the document
to keep the raises down.
Mr. Marks felt that during the evaluation process, if the standards of performance were
not fair, lifeguards would be prevented from receiving a good raise. Mr. Kruper stated
that the same problem exists in Public Works and there is no document that tells
employees what they have to do to attain a certain score. Stewards felt that this existed
in many departments. Mr. Macintyre thought that changing the guidelines was a breach
of City policy.
Ms. Munley noted that during last year's negotiations it had been agreed to have labor
management meetings, but this never came to fruition. Mr. Kruper stated that there
were some labor management meetings, but they were not successful.
Ms. Munley felt it should be stated in the contract exactly what the raise would be that
employees would receive, based upon their performance evaluation scores; i.e., if
someone received a 2, they would receive a 2% raise, 3 or more would receive 4%, etc.
up through 6%. Also, she wanted to see the scores of employees so they would know
what raises employees would actually be receiving. Without this knowledge, she felt
they are bargaining in a void.
Mr. Macintyre was told by his supervisor that a "4" was unattainable. If this was the
case, why was it included in the appraisal form?
10
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Mr. Osborn noted he received a "3" for "deals with the public" because he does not have
much contact with the public. Mr. Livergood explained that categories should be
weighted so that the employee would receive the proper grade. Mr. Marks pointed out
that his evaluation, which included typed-written justifications as backup, was returned
to him four times. He was informed that no one on beach patrol would receive over a
score of "3." However, it turned out that a few people did receive over a "3."
Mr. Taylor felt the purpose of the evaluation was to keep people down to the middle
range when it came to raises. The City had a responsibility to let employees know how
they could attain a score of "exceeds standards." Mr. Kruper noted that the manager
who did his evaluation was not his direct manager.
Recess was declared at 3:45 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 4:00 p.m.
Ms. Munley pointed out that even though the City has increased the "exceeds standard"
percentage employees could receive, she felt the document needed to be addressed
and they need to see scores for this year's evaluations.
Based upon how the scores look, the City's proposal could be acceptable. Also, they
would like the labor-management committee to begin meeting immediately. If they
accept the City's proposal, they would like to have reopeners for the next two years of
the contract for wages.
Mr. Jordan inquired if Ms. Munley would accept last year's scores so that people could
receive their raises. This was not acceptable to the union. Ms. Munley felt that the City's
offer was good, but it would depend if employees would actually be able to attain a 6%
raise.
Mr. Jordan noted that last year only one employee in the City received a 4, but there
were many employees that came very close. With regard to employees receiving less
than 2 last year, Mr. Jordan thought that this could have involved six employees. Mr.
Jordan felt that the percentage of employees that received a score between 2 and 3
was approximately 98%. The average score last year was 2.8%.
Mr. Jordan inquired how the scores would impact the union's decision. Ms. Munley
stated hypothetically if only one person received an 8% increase, three people received
7% and the remainder received 5%, they may want to discuss another type of merit and
across the board scenario. Mr. Jordan stated that this was the City's offer and there
would be no further changes to it.
Ms. Munley inquired if the employees that received under 2 last year were disciplined in
any manner throughout the year. Mr. Jordan was not able to answer this. It was noted
that if an employee received under 2 it would have to be documented.
11
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Ms. Munley noted in the City's proposal there is language that reads, "The employee
must demonstrate immediate and sustained improvement in their performance
throughout the 90-day evaluation period or face dismissaL" She felt that if an employee
received under 2, there would have been some discipline based upon poor job
performance that would have been documented.
Ms. Munley remarked that one of the worst things that could happen to an employee is
when that employee felt they did a good job all year and then find out during their
performance review that they performed poorly. This kind of thing is detrimental to team
work, cooperation and good morale.
Emeraency Pay Policy
The City's proposal is set out in Article 23 on Page 43. Union members took time to
read the proposed language. Ms. Munley asked for the meaning of Paragraph 23.3.
Ms. Munley was not pleased with this language. From the way the language reads, Mr.
Osborn pointed out that a person who worked during an emergency would only receive
time and one-half. Ms. Munley noted that the language the Union proposed resulted
from the settlement of arbitration a couple of years ago, and they want to retain the
current emergency pay policy.
Ms. Munley inquired what issues they would like to have Gilbert Escudero from the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service address. Mr. Jordan stated that the first day
Mr. Escudero was available was March 27th, but he will confirm this. Ms. Munley would
like to have specific issues, such as paychecks, how people are treated in Utilities, and
performance evaluations. Mr. Jordan did not think that performance evaluations should
be discussed.
Ms. Munley felt Mr. Escudero could assist with interest based bargaining. Ms. Munley
preferred to speak with the new Utilities Director regarding issues in that Department,
before it was brought to Mr. Escudero. Mr. Livergood responded that for interest based
bargaining to work, the parties would have to enter the bargaining with the intent that
they would be willing to give up some of their positions. Ms. Munley felt the union has
come down from many positions and has tried to meet the City in many areas. She
noted that years have been spent on the current agreement and they are not willing to
give this up. Ms. Munley felt the City had not presented their issues clearly enough for
the union to know what the City is actually looking for. Because of this, the union feels
that the City might be trying to take away benefits previously agreed to.
Mr. Osborn recommended readdressing the take-home auto policy for on-call
employees. Ms. Munley thought this issue had been settled, but Mr. Osborn responded
the City wanted to take this away. Mr. Osborn noted the City felt if an employee did not
live within City limits, they could not take a City vehicle home if they were on-call.
Attorney Pawelczyk stated that travel to and from the job is not compensated under the
terms of FLSA. An employee begins being paid when he reports to work. Mr. Osborn
12
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue and White Collar Negotiations
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
did not think this was correct and when an employee was on-call, all time spent
responding to that call is considered hours worked. The City's Risk Manager informed
Mr. Osborn that if he got into an accident to and from the job, the City would cover him,
but not his vehicle. Also, his own insurance company informed him that his vehicle
would not be covered unless he purchased a certain type of insurance.
Attorney Pawelczyk requested Mr. Osborn furnish him with the FLSA statutes he
referenced, because the statutes Attorney Pawelczyk looked at contradicted Mr.
Osborn's findings.
Mr. Osborn asked why the City changed its policy not to allow emergency personnel
that live outside the City to take a vehicle home. Mr. Jordan responded this was
direction he received from management.
MeetinQ Dates
· Wednesday, March 16, 2005, 1 :00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. - Place to be announced
· Thursday, March 17,2005,1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.- Place to be announced
Sessions with Gilbert Escudero:
· Thursday, March 24, 2005 - Time and Place to be announced
· Monday, March 28, 2005 - Time and Place to be announced
.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,juhA/t"-- ). \ . /l,l ILl}. t__
Barbara M. Madden
Recording Secretary
(March 9, 2005)
13