Loading...
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