Loading...
Minutes 05-19-05 MINUTES OF THE WHITE COLLAR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SESSION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FIREMEN & OILERS AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, HELD ON THURSDAY MAY 19, 2005 AT 1 :00 P.M. IN CONFERENCE ROOM B, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present: For the City of Boynton Beach: For NCF&O John Jordan, Assistant Director of Human Resources Jeff Livergood, Director of Public Works Mike Pawelczyk, Assistant City Attorney Sharon Munley, Trustee, Local 1227 Skip Lewis, NCF&O (Code) John Pagliarulo, NCF&O (Building) Pam Welsh, NCF&O (Utilities) Call to Order The bargaining session was called to order at 1 :16 p.m. A sign in sheet was circulated and provided to the Clerk for inclusion with the records of the meeting. Open Articles: ~ Article 16 - Wages ~ Article 17 - Promotion, Reclassifications, Transfers & Demotions ~ Article 19 - Emergency Pay Policy ~ Article 35 - Recruitment and Selection ~ Article 44 - Probationary Period ~ Article 49 - Modification of Conditions ~ Article 50 - Posting of Agreement ~ Article 51 - Collateral Documents ~ Article 52 - Duration Article 35 - Recruitment and Selection Each party provided language for this Article. Ms. Munley asked what the City thought of the Union's language for this Article. Attorney Pawelczyk stated there were some things that the City did not agree with. Mr. Livergood responded that it had to do with wording. The City would agree to the inclusion of the new language in the first sentence of Section 35.1, "while ensuring equal employment opportunity." In Section 35.1, the City also agreed to the inclusion of the language in the last sentence of that section that reads, "provided that where these factors are equivalent, "preference will be given to current employees." Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 20, 2005 In Section 35.3.1.7, the word "required" was deleted. In Section 35.2.4 there used to be language at the end of the section that read, "except during the last quarter of the fiscal year." This gave the City an opportunity not to fill positions if the position had to be considered as part of the budget process. Mr. Livergood would like some language that would provide "nothing would limit the City's rights to eliminate or modify vacancies." Ms. Munley questioned if the City ever eliminated positions and Mr. Jordan stated that positions have been eliminated and gave examples of how this could occur. He noted, however, that staff prefers not to eliminate positions. Attorney Pawelczyk recommended adding language that would state, "nothing herein shall abrogate the City's ability to change, modify, or eliminate vacant bargaining unit positions." Ms. Munley recommended using the word "prevent" in place of "abrogate". Therefore, Section 35.2.4 will now read: "The City shall make every effort to fill open bargaining unit positions within sixty (60) days of the position becoming vacant, except nothing herein shall prevent the City from changing, modifying or eliminating vacant bargaining unit positions." Next addressed was Section 35.3.1.1. Attorney Pawelczyk asked for clarification of "for good cause" in the fourth line of this Section. Ms. Munley responded that the City would have to have justifiable reason to withdraw the recruitment process. Mr. Livergood requested a definition for "justifiable reason." Attorney Pawelczyk recommended deleting "for good cause" because it was vague and ambiguous and could create a problem for the contract. Mr. Livergood inquired what the Union was looking for in this process and whether the Union wanted notification or the ability to grieve a decision to withdraw the recruitment process. Ms. Munley felt the City has the right to determine the number of positions and the right to select a person to fill a position. The Union, however, feels that the City should have a good reason to withdraw the recruitment process and to explain why it did so. Mr. Jordan recommended that the Union be provided notice in such event. Attorney Pawelczyk recommended language that would state, "The recruitment process may be withdrawn by the Director of Human Resources upon written notice to the Union, provided that such withdrawal is not arbitrary or capricious." This language would prevent the City from doing something in bad faith and for no reason. Ms. Munley requested that the Union be provided "written notice," which the City agreed to. The parties agreed to this language. Ms. Munley noted that Paragraphs c. and d. were deleted in Section 35.3.1.9. Instead of deleting Paragraph c., Ms. Munley recommended leaving it in and changing the language to read, "Determine which candidates are most suitable for further 2 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 20,2005 consideration and proceed with additional interviews, if necessary." The City agreed to leave this language in with the recommended changes. Discussion took place on the determination and selection of candidate pools. If a department head informs Human Resources that they have enough qualified candidates in the pool provided, Human Resources would review them. Ms. Munley recommended further amending Section 35.3.1.9. by adding an "or" after "necessary" and adding the following language: "request a broader applicant pool from the Human Resource Department." Mr. Jordan recommended leaving Section d. in to read, "Identify that the applicant pool was insufficient." After discussion, sub-section c. and d. were changed to read: c. "Determine which candidates are most suitable for further consideration and proceed with additional interviews, if necessary; or" d. "Determine that the applicant pool was not sufficient." The parties agreed to this language and the remainder of the language on this page was acceptable. The following language was added to Section 35. 3.2.4: "The Human Resource Director shall be responsible for reviewing recommendations to assure fairness in the process." The parties were also agreeable with the last sentence in Section 35.3.2.5 that read, "The Union shall also be notified of the proposed deviation in pay." The language in Section 35.3.2.5 that reads, "and may obtain, following the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the prospective employee's credit" had been stricken and Mr. Jordan felt it needed to remain in the contract. Ms. Munley agreed to leave it in. The parties were agreeable to striking the next paragraph of Section 35.3.2.5. The last sentence of Section 35.3.4.1 that reads, "A representative from the Union shall be notified of the date, time and place and shall be allowed to attend and make a presentation" has been stricken. In lieu of this, Ms. Munley inquired if the Union could be furnished the names of new hires. Mr. Jordan stated this was okay. He pointed out that new hires are listed in the City's newsletter. Ms. Munley wanted assurances that new people would be furnished a Union contract. Mr. Jordan noted they are provided one at orientation. With the corrections having been made, the parties T A'd Article 35. 3 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 20, 2005 Article 44 - Probationary Period The parties TA'd this Article. Article 50 - Posting of Agreement It was acknowledged that white-collar bargaining unit members have access to the City Website. Ms. Munley was concerned for employees that did not have access to the Website and Mr. Jordan responded that this would not apply to those employees. Mr. Lewis inquired if people would be allowed to print out a copy of the Agreement if they so wished and Mr. Jordan responded that they could. The parties T A'd this Article. Article 17 - Promotions, Reclassifications, Transfers & Demotions With regard to transfers and demotions, the old language read, "When an employee transferred to a lower position, or accepts a voluntary demotion, the employee shall suffer no loss of pay unless the employee's current hourly rate exceeds the maximum of the new lower salary scale." The new language now provides for a decrease in pay of 5%, 7.5% or 10%. Further, Ms. Munley pointed out that the language does not indicate if the transfer or demotion was punitive or voluntary. Mr. Jordan explained the reasoning behind this language is attributable to an employee who took a voluntary promotion of four grades and then one year later that employee took a voluntary demotion to their previous grade and kept the same increase in pay. The City would be agreeable to a person going back to their previous position at the same salary they were making before they took a promotion. Mr. Jordan noted that this practice is also taking place in other areas of the City. In Section 17.2.4 there is a reference to an exception to the policy and Ms. Munley inquired when this could apply. Mr. Jordan explained that this language is necessary in the event a department was restructured, people would not have their salaries reduced. Ms. Munley would like language in the contract to this effect and inquired if people being demoted would be subject to impact bargaining. In that event, Attorney Pawelczyk recommended adding language to Section 17.2.4 as follows: "This shall not be construed to reduce an employee's rate of pay beyond the percentages set forth in Section 17.2.1." The parties agreed to this language. Ms. Munley asked for clarification in Section 17.3.2 of "no property entitlement to their position." Mr. Jordan explained that a person is not guaranteed the position while they are on probation. Ms. Munley felt the paragraph was redundant, but it was decided to leave the language in the contract. 4 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 20,2005 Ms. Munley would like the Union involved when reclassifications of bargaining unit positions occur in the City. She stated it was the City's responsibility to inform the City whenever this occurred. Mr. Jordan thought whenever a bargaining unit position was involved, the Union was notified. Ms. Munley requested that language be added that the Union would be notified in the event a request for reclassification was made. Attorney Pawelczyk recommended a new Section 17.4.4 be added that would read - "17.4.4. Human Resources will provide a copy of the department head's request for reclassification to the Union upon approval of the reclass." The parties were in agreement with the changes and TA'd Article 17. Article 40 - General Provisions Mr. Lewis reported that his supervisor agreed to include shoes in the Code Enforcement Division budget, pending the outcome of the contract negotiations. Mr. Livergood also noted that this has already been presented to the City Manager. Mr. Livergood inquired if Mr. Blasie approved of the language and Mr. Lewis stated that he did. Mr. Lewis also noted that he was in agreement as well. Next discussed was Section 40.7, Automobile Allowance. Ms. Munley recommended that the current language remain status quo and the new language "if the City does not supply the employee with a car to conduct City business" be deleted. Mr. Livergood pointed out that the City could provide vehicles for less than $525 a month and Ms. Munley recommended leaving it at $490. Ms. Munley stated the Union was unwilling to take away employees' car allowances unless that language was deleted. The City requested to caucus at 2:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 2:26 p.m. Mr. Jordan stated the City would be willing to leave the language as written with the car allowance remaining at $490. The parties TA'd Article 40. Ms. Munley reported that the Union is not willing to change the following Articles: Article 19 - Article 49 - Article 51 - Emergency Pay Maintenance of Conditions Collateral Documents 5 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 20, 2005 Article 19 - Emergency Pay Policy Ms. Munley pointed out that a couple of years ago during negotiations, the Union and the City came up with the Emergency Pay Policy Article based upon a grievance settlement as to how people would be paid during those situations. She pointed out that the Article allows the City to declare when the emergency situation is over. Article 51 - Collateral Documents The Union wants to have the collateral documents presented as they change throughout the year. Mr. Jordan pointed out that the contract covers the items that are unique to the collective bargaining agreement. Further, the collective bargaining agreement outlines the variations on the City's policies that covers all employees and lists those things that are unique to the collective bargaining unit. Ms. Munley inquired what would be in the APM that the Union does not have in its contract. Mr. Jordan responded that the APM contains a great many administrative policies that are not defined in the contact. Therefore, stating if something were not in the contract it would not apply, is incorrect. Ms. Munley inquired about attaching the APM to the contract and Mr. Jordan responded that the APM was too voluminous. Ms. Munley questioned how would people know if a rule applied, if they did not have the APM. Ms. Welsh noted that the APM and the PPM are on the share drive and are available to all employees. Mr. Jordan explained that all rules contained in the APM and PPM apply to all employees. Mr. Jordan pointed that any Article in the collective bargaining agreement would take precedence and if there were conflict, it would be subject to impact bargaining or labor management. The contract is an exception for the other rules of the City. Ms. Munley reviewed the Articles contained in the APM. Attorney Pawelczyk recommended adding in the fifth line after the words "collateral documents conflict with the terms of," the words "a specific article in this agreement." He next suggested adding the following language - "Any change or addition to collateral documents during the term of this agreement, which conflict with the terms of the agreement, may require impact bargaining. Ms. Munley was not in favor of this language because it does not address a new conflict that could arise. After a lengthy discussion, Attorney Pawelczyk recommended adding the following sentence to Article 51 : "Nothing herein shall be interpreted to preclude the right of the Union or City to impact bargain, subject to applicable laws." The parties agreed to this new language. 6 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 20,2005 The parties TA'd Article 51. Article 49 - Maintenance of Conditions Ms. Munley requested that this Article remain status quo. Mr. Livergood pointed out that Section 49.1 is now covered under Collateral Documents. Mr. Livergood had an issue with "status quo" and stated "status quo" could never override language in the contract. Ms. Munley recommended forming a committee in order to determine what "status quo" is. The City requested to caucus at 3:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:18 p.m. The City is recommending the following language for this Article: "If past practice or status quo is revised at any time during the terms of this contract, then the Union and City agree to document the resolution of the status quo or past practice by Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and such MOU shall not survive this Agreement unless incorporated into future agreements." Ms. Munley inquired if the City was amenable to a three-year agreement. Mr. Jordan responded this could be discussed with wages. Mr. Livergood explained that by utilizing this language it would require the City to do labor/management meetings. Ms. Munley requested using another document in place of an MOU since this would have to be ratified. It was decided to change the MOU to a "Letter of Agreement." This Article was not TA'd and will be readdressed. Article 19 - Emergency Pay Policy The Union was not amenable to changing this Article. Ms. Munley noted in Section 19.1 it states bargaining unit members who are released from work by their department head during a period of emergency shall be paid their regular pay, but the time released from work shall not count as hours actually worked for the purpose of calculating entitlement of overtime. Ms. Munley interpreted this to mean if an employee worked eight hours and then comes back in and works 16 hours, the 16 hours is paid at straight time. Mr. Jordan stated this is not the case and referred to Section 19.2. Section 19.2 states that employees who are not released from work during a period of emergency or who have been released and are called into work during the emergency 7 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 20,2005 shall be paid at time and one half for time actually worked regardless of the number of hours worked. Mr. Jordan felt this was a better provision than in the previous contract. Ms. Welsh pointed out that previously employees that were called into work and provide a service to the City during a declared emergency were credited with eight hours of pay at their regular straight time rate of pay for each work day during the declared emergency. The eight hours or shift time of credited pay shall be counted as time worked for purposes of computing overtime. Employees also received their regular hourly rate of pay at the appropriate rate of pay for all hours actually worked during the emergency. Ms. Munley equated this to mean that if an employee was home during the emergency, they received eight hours pay. If an employee came to work, they received eight hours, plus the time worked. Therefore, when they were working, they were receiving double time. Mr. Jordan explained that employees would be receiving eight hours in addition to time worked. Ms. Munley inquired if Sections 19.1 and 19.2 applied during emergencies and Mr. Jordan responded everyone would receive eight hours. Ms. Munley felt there needed to be language that stated in addition to Section 19.1, employees who are not released from work during a period of emergencies would receive time and one-half in addition to pay in Section 19.1. Ms. Munley felt the previous language was better and recommended that this Article remain status. Attorney Pawelczyk pointed out that it was the Mayor that declared an emergency, not the City Manager as indicated in Section 19.3.2. The City requested to caucus at 3:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 3:45 p.m. Mr. Jordan reported that they spoke with the City Manager and he was surprised that the Union wanted a three-year contract. Therefore, the City would like more time to look at the remaining Articles. The City is pleased that the parties have come this far, but need more time. Remaining Issues: Ms. Munley stated that the Union would like the following: ~ Three (3) year agreement with wages being reopened next year to implement the new classification and pay study. When they reopen next year, wages would be addressed for the next two years. ~ The Emergency Pay Article would remain status quo. The Union has no objection to having the Mayor declaring an emergency as opposed to the City Manager. ~ With regard to wages, the Union wants three percent (3%) across the board and the merit score. It was noted there was a typo in Section 16.1.2.a. "46.0" should be corrected to "4.60." 8 Meeting Minutes NCF&O White Collar Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 20,2005 This would mean that employees would receive an increase equivalent to their merit score, plus the 3% cost of living increase. Mr. Jordan pointed out that the average merit score was around 3%, which means people receiving above 3 would have received a 4% increase and people receiving a score of 3.5 would receive a merit increase of 5%. Ms. Munley stated that a majority of the people did not receive a merit score above three and Mr. Jordan responded that the average score was 3.02. Mr. Jordan further pointed out that the average for the white-collar was the highest average for the entire City. Since the average score was 3.02, this would equate to people receiving, on average, a wage increase of 4.04% merit increase, plus 2% that equals an increase of 6.04%. Mr. Livergood pointed out that the language proposed in the City's Wage Article was incorrect. The City would like an opportunity to review the issues with management before proceeding further. Ms. Munley inquired if there was a way that people who passed their performance appraisal would receive a 3% merit increase. Last year the bargaining unit members received a cost of living increase of 3% and an additional 3% if they passed their performance appraisal. Mr. Livergood responded that the City has presented its wage proposal and it will be clarified in the document. In summary, the Union is requesting an across-the-board 3% raise, effective October 1, 2004 and merit increases based upon the performance scores. The negotiating session adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, --lutt-~('{'<, It,. !k.~~-riV-.... Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (May 20, 2005) 9