Loading...
Minutes 04-01-05 MINUTES OF THE IMPASSE RESOLUTION MEETING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION HELD IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON APRIL 1, 2005, AT 11:00 A.M. Present For the City: For the Union: Jim Cherof, City Attorney Kurt Bressner, City Manager Jill Hanson, PBA Attorney Det. Toby Athol Sgt. Gary Chapman The meeting began at 11:12 a.m. The parties met to determine areas of agreement and disagreement after each had reviewed the recommendations of the special Magistrate. During the morning of April 1, the Union was given the City's Alternate Contract Settlement offer for the PBA Police Officer, Sergeant and Lieutenant Bargaining Units for Three-Year Contracts. The Union expressed gratitude for the positive effort the City had made in its alternate offer. Attorney Hanson stated that the Union was in agreement with the City's acceptance of the Special Magistrate's recommendation on Issue No. 1 - New Article - Discipline. Attorney Cherof said that it was unclear whether a one, two, or three-year contract was under discussion. Mr. Bressner noted that his comments in the City's alternate settlement offer embraced a three-year contract for the totality of the recommendations. The parties discussed the ramifications of forwarding the articles upon which agreement could not be reached to the City Commission. Since the City Commission could only impose a one-year contract, it was thought that going forward with a contract on which both parties had reached agreement would be preferable to separating out little pieces of the contract. The importance of coming to resolution was emphasized when Mr. Bressner commented that the clock was running on the twenty-day period imposed by the Special Magistrate. Issue No.1 (Discipline) Issue No.2 (Union Business) Tentative agreement was reached. Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 Issue No.3 - Hours of Work and Overtime The Union did not agree with the City's proposal or the finding of the Special Magistrate on this item. They wanted vacation leave to count as hours worked. The Union wanted its contract to read like the other City employee contracts where vacation, sick, and comp time all count as hours worked for the purpose of overtime calculation. Issue No.4 - Take Home Cars The Union thought the City's proposal was good but asked for and received clarification from the City Manager that the proposal would apply to Police Officers and Sergeants only. The $22.50 payment for gas in the Union's proposal came from the practices of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, who used this to offset the employee's use of the car for personal business. Mr. Bressner noted that his response was geared to the economics of the matter. An analysis of the amount spent on gas last year showed a direct City cost of $1.90 per gallon. The idea was discussed that if the cost of gas to the City reached X dollars, a surcharge would be instituted. Whether or not this would be Citywide was not known. People using take-home vehicles do pay taxes on their personal use and there was an exemption for law enforcement for that. They had to show their commute and any personal use, if allowed. That was fairly limited and was based on individual contract employees, department heads and so forth, but they pay taxes on the mileage for that. Attorney Hanson stated that if personal use were allowed, they would understand the $22.50 payment. If personal use were not allowed, the cost of gas should be the employer's cost. Mr. Bressner stated that since the City was paying $1.90 for gas at this time, they would be looking for some cost participation. He was not aware that the $22.50 was based on personal use. The Union wanted: 1) provision that the cars would be issued in seniority order by Police J.D. number, 2) an opener (if 3-year contract) in second and third years in regard to the mileage limitation. Mr. Bressner responded that 15 miles was a fairly common number and a generous one, based on the comparative information discovered in its research. Attorney Cherof felt that in light of what it had taken and would take to get a contract, reopening a three-year contract was not very attractive to the City. The 2 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 City's agreement to no reopener on the issue of discipline was a major move for the City. Attorney Hanson asked (assuming that the cars would initially be assigned to road patrol officers) whether an officer transferring to road patrol during the contract would be issued a take-home vehicle. Mr. Bressner asked for and received confirmation that this person would "bump" someone of lesser seniority. He thought some language could be drafted, and he did not have a problem with the seniority issue. Issue No. 5 (Bonus Payment for 11.5 Hour Shift Employees; Issue No. 6 (Longevity Pay); Issue NO.7 (Salary Step Pay); Issue No.8 (Wage Increases and Rates for Patrol Officers and Sergeants The above items were discussed concurrently. Issue No.5 (Bonus Payment for 11.5 Hour Shift Employees) Proceeding under the assumption that these items were inter-related and the acceptance of some might affect the acceptance of others, Attorney Hanson stated that the Union would accept the City's proposal on Item No. 5 except as indicated in the information provided from Delray Beach, the officers work 11.5 hours and Delray Beach pays a night differential of .75 an hour. The Union proposed that if they could reach agreement on phasing out the 8.5% differential, the City could adopt a .75/hour night differential, with night defined as the hours from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Det. Athol said that the day shift had to come in at 3:30 in the a.m., so the "night hours" were not strictly the normal hours of 8 to 4, 4 to midnight, etc. A "crescent" could be determined that covered the night of 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Mr. Bressner confirmed that everybody in road patrol would get a differential for a portion of a shift. Mr. Bressner believed it was important to determine exactly what Delray Beach did in this regard. Issue No.6 (Longevity Pay) Attorney Hanson voiced acceptance of the proposal except the Union proposed that longevity be added to the base for the Sergeants only. This was related to the minimax discussion under Wages. Mr. Bressner confirmed that in the original PBA proposal, longevity was proposed as a lump sum and not that it be added to the base pay of the Sergeants. Sgt. Chapman added that the PBA proposal also had a matrix and equity chart for Sergeants and they wanted to address them 3 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 together. Mr. Bressner asked if the timing was for this fiscal year or the next, and was advised that it was meant to take effect this fiscal year. Attorney Hanson asked Mr. Bressner to clarify whether the proposals were set out as three different proposals or if they were inter-related as a package. Mr. Bressner responded that his understanding was that the Union had a desire to establish a contract based on the IAFF contract. Performance Evaluation Discussion Mr. Bressner was not aware of where the Police Department was in the evaluation cycle and whether it had moved from the employees' anniversary date to a common evaluation date. Det. Athol advised that all evaluations in the Police Department come at one time now. Mr. Bressner said that if modifications to the evaluation instrument were desired, it would take time. He thought it was important for the investigators to have elements pertaining to investigations, road patrol to road patrol and so forth. His sense was that the current evaluation form was more, "one size fits all." Sgt. Chapman said there were different evaluation forms. Mr. Bressner asked if a lot of time would have to be spent on the evaluation form, and Sgt. Chapman suggested a committee examine the evaluation benchmarks. Mr. Bressner asked if the Union wanted to implement the old system in this fiscal year and use the period between now and September 30 to develop improvements for the second year contract proposal. Det. Athol did not think there was time to re-do the entire evaluation process for this year. Det. Athol mentioned that the 0 or 5 measurement related to this issue. At 11:34 a.m. the City caucused and the meeting resumed at 11:39 a.m. Attorney Cherof said that the net of the City's position was that standards of performance and how to measure them are a management right, under the contract and also under Chapter 447. It was part of the mission of management to decide on the standards of performance required of employees and how that performance would be measured. The amount people are paid based on their performance evaluations is negotiable. Also, the performance evaluation forms are sound and do not need revision. Members of all three bargaining units have done very well under the pay part of Pay for Performance. The City did not want to change that too much. If the grievance process, which the City had wanted very much to change, was good enough for the next three years, then so was the Pay for Performance evaluation system. 4 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 Attorney Hanson said that they did not particularly have a problem with the performance instrument. Issue No.7 - Salary Step Plan Attorney Hanson referred to the Special Magistrate's recommendation not to institute a step pay plan for this contract year. The City's proposal on this was a plan based on the IAFF contract, which provided for a 0% or 5% wage hike based on performance. She asked for and received confirmation that if a person meets standards, they would receive a 5% increase in pay. If a person does not meet standards, they would receive 0% increase in pay. Det. Athol believed that this eliminated 99% of the Union's objections on this issue. Mr. Bressner commented that the IAFF contract contained specific 90-day cycles in reference to remediating poor performance. The Union expressed understanding of Attorney Cherof's statement that uncured performance after re- evaluation would result in termination, as stated in the IAFF contract. It was not a discipline issue, but a termination based on performance. Mr. Bressner asked if the Union wanted to see implementation of the 0 or 5% this year or next. The Union wanted to see it this year. Attorney Cherof's understanding was that this feature would go into effect next year. It was agreed that the final outcome of this was dependent on the results of negotiations on the other wage issues. Issue No. 8 - Wage Increase and Rates for Patrol Officers and Sergeants: Det. Athol iterated the Union's views on this issue. The base salary goes to $40K upon clearing FTO training for patrolmen. The entire bargaining unit would have an increase to the base of the same percent, which he believed was 9.8%. In addition to that, was there a percentage for the evaluation? Mr. Bressner responded that there was and that would be 0% or 5%, depending on performance. In years 2 and 3, there would be a 3% market adjustment to base and eligibility for the 0 or 5% performance. Attorney Hanson asked for and received confirmation that the maximum would be 8%. Attorney Hanson stated that one of their concerns was the top-out pay for the Sergeants. Sgt. Chapman stated that $76,138 was in line with the Fire Department's scale. Mr. Bressner said he was dealing with Police Officers at other agencies, not Firefighters. Sgt. Chapman stated that other agencies incorporated longevity into base and there were other opportunities to raise the 5 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 base. Attorney Cherof said there was no yardstick to measure against. Every city had different components of coming up with a pay calculation. Sgt. Chapman said they had chosen figures right in the middle of the cities they studied. Mr. Bressner said he took the $52K, which was his understanding of the PBA's original proposal for the beginning step of the Sergeant's salaries. Mr. Bressner asked what the top end of the Sergeants' pay scale was, and Sgt. Chapman responded, $76K. Mr. Bressner stated that the top end for Sergeants was $72,363 at the cities of Palm Beach, Boca, Lake Worth, and the Sheriff's office. This proposal was $74,578, which was above the comparable figure. Sgt. Chapman agreed, but said that in West Palm the Sergeants get 10 to 15% in addition to the base pay because of tenure. They get another $7K or 8K and this is incorporated into their overtime as well. Attorney Cherof asked how many Sergeants would be affected by the proposed longevity adjustment in year 1 and year 2 of the contract. Mr. Bressner said that $26K would be added to the base for longevity. Mr. Bressner understood from the original PBA proposal that it was to be a lump sum and not added to the base. Det. Athol said that was in conjunction with other items. Mr. Bressner had a hard time with a 9.8% wage increase and a 0 or 5% performance. From his perspective, the top end of the Sergeants range would be in excess of the comparables the City found and this was difficult. He was having a hard time accepting the fact that, 1) longevity would be added to the Sergeants this fiscal year, and 2) that it would be added to the base. This was especially true given the fact that the City had addressed the issue starting with patrol officers of going beyond what the PBA had recommended for their base pay. They recommended $38.6K and the City exceeded that. For recruits, instead of paying 75% of base, the City was giving them $39K and this was for the purpose of recruitment so the City could address some of the issues the PBA raised. He thought the adjustments would bear thinking about. Long range, it might not be possible to do that this year. Sgt. Chapman said the City was looking at the Sergeants and Officers and making adjustments that were good; however, they still had Sergeants that were making less money than recently promoted Sergeants that had less time on the job. He was suggesting that their pay be boosted with the longevity so they would not be training people who make more than they do. If the top were raised to $76K, that would resolve the problem. Mr. Bressner stated that the City might not be able to agree to that during this fiscal year. Sgt. Chapman stated that the Special Magistrate was specific in his recommendations in regard to equity and that there should be some recognition 6 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 is addressed in the IAFF contract as the use of sick time, but this contract could make it an attendance issue. Attorney Hanson said there was no problem if the wording talked about the abuse of sick leave. Going back to the FMLA, a person is entitled to up to 12 weeks. Attorney Cherof agreed, but only if FMLA applied and it was not meant to deal with traditional sick days. Mr. Bressner stated that 3% added to $77,745 was $80,077. He asked for the specifics on Delray Beach. He did not have a problem with the night time shift differential in concept, but the City would need to look at the impact. He commented that the old special duty pay was gone, and Det. Athol agreed. The parties agreed that the negotiations had come to a point where the agreed- to language needed to be drafted and final agreement obtained. Sgt. Chapman suggested that in reference to the Sergeant's pay, in the next budget year, a one-time, lump sum for longevity be given. Mr. Bressner stated that if this were done, it would be done as a lump sum and not added to the base. Sgt. Chapman asked if there would be a way to address a couple of the Sergeants who were not properly paid. Attorney Cherof stated that this was not an issue to be addressed during collective bargaining. If someone wanted to identify a few people who were disparately paid and present that case to the Human Resources Division, that would be a possibility. If the Human Resources Division agrees, that could be a solution. The Human Resources would be required to present this to the City Manager for a decision on a recommendation to adjust the Pay Plan. Attorney Hanson said that if everyone agreed to this, it would be happening outside the collective bargaining agreement. Attorney Cherof disagreed, saying that the City would come back to the Union with a Memo of Understanding that would have to be ratified by the Commission and the bargaining unit. Mr. Bressner believed that Attorney Cherof was going farther than he was prepared to go. Attorney Cherof did not know how long it would take the parties to draft new contract language based on the current negotiations, but reminded everyone that each side was under the pressure of time to accept or reject the impasse recommendations of the Special Magistrate. His recommendation to the City Manager was that he reject those recommendations of the Special Magistrate that were talked about today, still allowing time for further negotiation. There was no timetable on when the Commission had to deal with the impasse. If ratification were achieved, it would not be necessary to go to the Commission at all. 8 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 for rank. Mr. Bressner responded that the Special Magistrate's recommendation was not to add it to the base. Attorney Cherof stated that the Special Magistrate had only made that recommendation based upon the evidence that was before him, which did not include the progression over time of Pay for Performance and the disparity between the different bargaining agents. Sgt. Chapman said the disparity was because the City took away the Pay Plan to begin with. Attorney Cherof said that the City made a policy decision to chose Pay for Performance instead. The meeting recessed at 11 :56 a.m. and resumed at 12:07 p.m. Attorney Hanson stated that the proposal the City made with regard to the Lieutenants, Issue No.9, would be taken to the bargaining unit for ratification. Attorney Hanson stated that they would take the contract for the Officers and Sergeants to the bargaining unit for ratification subject to the resolution of three issues: 1) understanding that the wage increase would be retroactive to October 1, 2004; 2) that the payment of shift differential for night time hours would be in accord with Delray Beach's .75/hour (whatever hours Delray Beach pays this night differential for would be acceptable to the Union.); (Det. Athol added that this would be for 2005-06; and 3) the pay ranges for Sergeants. Det. Athol suggested that it be rolled back when it started in year 2 and 3 and then instead of $74,578, it would start at $76,138. Mr. Bressner reiterated his understanding of the proposal as: $52K to $76,138 in year 1; in year 2, $53,560 to $77,745, and in year 3 it would be $55,167 plus 3%. Det. Athol concurred. Det. Athol said that most of the wording from the IAFF contract did not apply because the Police Department evaluations had been set to a unified date. Det. Athol asked if the wording from the City was something that the City wanted in the contract or reference wording, and Attorney Cherof responded that it was reference wording. Mr. Bressner did want the sick leave issue included in the contract. Attorney Hanson thought that might be illegal. She had just seen a case where the employer had to change a sick leave plan that punished people for taking time that was permitted to them under the Family Medical Leave Act. Attorney Cherof asked that the City be shown the opinion in the referenced case but absent that, the City wanted to have it in there. Det. Athol stated that five or more occasions was not a sick day, in reference to the IAFF language. Mr. Bressner offered to get a translation table of this for the Union. Attorney Cherof stated that in regard to performance evaluations, attendance was a factor. This 7 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 Attorney Cherof stated that the recommendation to the Commission should be to hold the impasse hearing in abeyance while the parties continue to bargain to resolve the contract. Mr. Bressner was agreeable to the retroactivity issue. He needed to see the specifics from Delray Beach on the evening shift differential. He was agreeable the pay ranges for Sergeants. The other suggestion was to put attendance issues in the evaluations. Det. Athol asked for and received confirmation that there would be two 90-day time periods following a sub-par evaluation in order to remedy the performance issue(s). If the evaluation were sub par after the second 90-day period, that individual would be eligible for a performance-based termination. Attorney Hanson said there should be a memo of understanding to submit to the bargaining unit for ratification. Attorney Cherof will make the changes to the contract and send to Attorney Hanson for review and submission for ratification. Mr. Bressner said his understanding was that the City had accepted the Special Master's findings regarding the hours of work and overtime and that there would be no reopener. When the Union raised the three issues earlier, Mr. Bressner's assumption was that they accepted the contract with resolution of those three issues. Was that their position? He stated that the agreements reached would be in effect for three years, so it was important to be clear about all understandings. At 12:23 p.m. the meeting recessed and resumed at 12:35 p.m. Attorney Hanson stated that in Delray Beach, they called it incentive for senior officers to work evening and night shifts. They pay .60/hour on 4-12 shift; .85 an hour on the 12-8 shift, and on the 11.5 hour shifts, they pay .75/hour. Delray Beach's set-up for night shifts is different than that of Boynton Beach. In Delray Beach, there is one shift that is pretty much night and one that is pretty much day. For the entire 11.5-hour night shift, they pay .75/hour. Mr. Bressner asked if the assignment to those shifts was by seniority. Det. Athol said that the officers picked by seniority which shift they wanted to work. Attorney Hanson said they were paying this money to encourage officers to work the night shift. Mr. Bressner said if they paid .75/hour for part of one shift and part of another, there would be no incentive for senior officers to sign up for the night shifts. Det. Athol said that for 90% of the night shift they would be getting .75/hour. It would apply to 9.5 of the 11.5 hours. 9 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 Attorney Cherof aired his feeling about the issue of additional pay for people that work the night shifts, saying that it was a spin-off of the officers' seniority rights. The senior members of the department were forcing the night shifts on younger members of the department and asking the City to pay for it. Attorney Hanson stated that the purpose was to get more senior officers to work the night shift. Attorney Cherof said the City had not asked for that. Mr. Bressner asked for clarification on the night hours in Boynton Beach. The night shifts were iterated as: 3:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. Attorney Cherof stated that the City would be drafting the contract in accordance with the Special Magistrate's recommendation. Mr. Bressner commented that the City was talking about changing the 8.5% to 5% in year 2, 4% the next year and so on. They were trying to come up with whether or not there would be any other shift incentive for years 2 and beyond. Attorney Cherof asked what .75/hour equated to in terms of a percentage. Det. Athol said it would depend on the rate. Mr. Bressner got confirmation that the Bravo shift would be on the only shift subject to some type of adjustment. There are actually two Bravo shifts, one working the night shift and another the afternoon shift. The City wondered why anything needed to be done on this item. Sgt. Chapman said it was difficult working the night hours and there should be an incentive to do so. Attorney Hanson said that during bargaining, they discussed that the SWAT and FTO pay were not affected by the withdrawal of the special duty pay, and Mr. Bressner agreed. Attorney Hanson stated that they would submit their acceptances and rejections of the Special Magistrate's proposals. Attorney Hanson said that the outcome on the hours worked (vacation remaining status quo or as time worked) was one further key to agreement on the contract. Mr. Bressner wanted to iterate his understanding of the Union's conditions for moving on to ratification. 1) retroactivity, 2) shift differential for night work, 3) Sergeants' pay ranges would go from $52K to $76,138, $53,566 to $77,745 and $55,167 to $80,077, and 4) in opposition to the Special Magistrate's recommendation of deleting vacation leave, the Union wants it to remain status quo. 10 Meeting Minutes Impasse Bargaining Meeting PBA/City of Boynton Beach Boynton Beach, Florida April 1, 2005 Attorney Cherof expressed respect for the tenacity of the bargaining team in continuing to bring back issues. In spite of that respect, the City would be saying no to two of the Union's four issues. One was the shift differential issue and the other was to maintain the status quo on what constitutes hours actually worked. The City thinks the Magistrate was correct on this point. The City would like to draft a contract consistent with that and have the Union submit it for ratification. Attorney Cherof hoped to have a contract to Attorney Hanson by no later than Wednesday, April 6. The contract will be in legislative format with strike- throughs and underlines. The parties felt that a lot had been accomplished. The meeting ended at 12:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, susrm etJ"Ums Susan Collins Recording Secretary (040105) 11