Loading...
Minutes 11-02-07 MINUTES OF THE BLUE COLLAR BARGAINING SESSION BETWEEN THE NCF&O AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH HELD IN THE FIRE/POLICE TRAINING ROOM AT 10:00 A.M. ON NOVEMBER, 2, 2007, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: For the City of Boynton Beach For NCF&O Jim Cherof, City Attorney Sharyn Goebelt, Human Resources Director Marylee Coyle, Assistant Human Resources Director Bobby Jenkins, Assistant Finance Director Michael Low, Deputy Utilities Director Mike Stanley, U.S SEIU Jeff Mark, U.S., NCF&O Public Service Unit of SEIU Mike Osborn, U.S., NCF&O Don Roberts, U.S., NCF&O Absent: Kalem Mahd, U.S., NCF&O Jim Cherof, City Attorney, opened the collective bargaining session at 10:30 a.m. and commented on the delay in the meeting start. He requested receiving notification if someone would be late in the future. Mr. Stanley responded he contacted Attorney Cherot's office about his delay five minutes before the meeting was to begin. Self-introductions were made. Mike Stanley, SEIU representative, proposed to move forward in the contract negotiations in a different manner and wanted to discuss issues and the subject matter. He acknowledged they may not necessarily be discussed in sequential articles. Mr. Stanley also offered his apologies for his delayed arrival and inquired about the City's position relative to a three year or a two year agreement. The Union wanted to talk about each scenario and what the City's position was on it. Attorney Cherof requested the Union review what articles they had concerns with. The Union announced they were prepared, as they addressed items, to indicate why they felt they were important. Mr. Stanley pointed out it was 31 days past the contract date. They were hearing rumors the City Manager and City employees in management positions were saying the Union was dragging the negotiations out and was the reason why the employees had not received their October 1 sl raises. Mr. Stanley announced, for the record, the Union had no objection, to proceed and make whatever wage payments that would have been effective October 1 sl paid to the employees so that item would not be an issue. The Union gave permission to do so. Mr. Roberts explained this pertained to the pay study, Mr. Stanley proposed the City come back and be prepared to meet at least eight full hours with the intent to reach a tentative agreement at that time. He reported their committee was committed to that, but thought they should think of a date with an eight hour slot to avoid meeting for two hours with days between sessions. He acknowledged attendees had other jobs but believed it would be more productive to meet in that manner and suggested if it needed to be on a weekend, they would make themselves available. Mr. Stanley reported the Union was not interested in any concessions whatsoever or anything that would gut the contract. They would be interested in talking about things the City believed was problematic but he did not see why anything should be taken away from the employees. Meeting Minutes NCF&O Bargaining Session Boynton Beach, Florida November 2, 2007 He did not believe the City was in dire need of money and they were aware of newspaper articles giving certain City individual(s) hefty raises. The Union believed if employees had to give up things, the trimming should begin with management. Mr. Stanley advised one of their primary concerns was when employees topped out. They believed it was important to allow employees to reach a level and continue to draw and climb the ladder in terms of pay, unless it was a pay study increase. They believed that once a tentative settlement was reached, employees should be paid retroactively to October 1. Mr. Stanley advised from an accounting standpoint, it did not make any difference if the City paid retroactively or if the raise had been put in place at the time. The Union wanted to reach an understanding on the 2-4% evaluations and pay study. Mr. Stanley explained the item was important to all the employees and was a morale builder. The pay study showed they were underpaid. It was the Union's understanding that 5% should not be an issue. Mr. Roberts clarified it was to be the final step to the increase of the pay study. Mr. Stanley acknowledged the City was seeking insurance bids. He requested this item be held open until they could jointly complete some type of a study. He advised it did not help if employees received a small increase and then it be used up for premium increases. The Union was concerned about holiday pay not being used for the computation of overtime. Mr. Roberts clarified it was that way in a prior contract. This was the third year that it was taken away from Union employees. The Union believed most contracts say holiday pay was considered as time worked, and they believed not using it in the computation of overtime was not fair. The Union wanted to discuss the grievance procedure and indicated they believed the City was bypassing certain steps of discipline. They reported there were instances where an evaluation occurred and there was some sort of discipline, it was double jeopardy. Mr. Roberts explained the original City proposal was discipline could effect one's evaluation and could result in disciplinary action. The Union explained they did not feel that it was just. As an example, if employees were over seven minutes late, then they did not get paid for it. Mr. Roberts reported anything could make you late and people were being penalized for being one minute late. He acknowledged if it was a pattern it would affect them on their evaluation anyway and the policy should be the same throughout the City. Mr. Osborn felt the process should be less subjective. The Union recognized supervisors have their favorites and the people who are not "pets" have provisions used against them. He advised they were trying to get this to be concise. There was no language pertaining to management. Mr. Stanley wanted to have in depth discussions about the value of a doctors excuse. The Union wanted to discuss the question of employees being required to sign a disciplinary statement. There was a practice that later, things were being slipped into files. Mr. Osborn explained the City had proposed to remove not signing a disciplinary statement as extreme misconduct. He did acknowledge when discipline was given, they should sign something acknowledging that they received it. Mr. Osborn explained the disciplinary article was the same article as the White Collar that extreme misconduct would result in termination. He explained there was already language in the contract for some issues, but there were other issues that should not result in termination. Mr. Osborn agreed there were employees who do take 2 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Bargaining Session Boynton Beach, Florida November 2, 2007 advantage of situations and those were the individuals that needed to be dealt with by the City's rules, but they needed to be dealt with fairly and equitably. Mr. Stanley advised there were strong contentions about the City's desire to do something different requiring the work breaks. The Union did not want to see anything changed that would be a concession. The Union did not want any concessions made regarding Article 20, Standby and Call Back Payor work breaks. The Union acknowledged the City wanted to change vacation day notices. The Union preferred to keep the language, but wanted to see how it would be applied over the life of the agreement. The Union wanted the status quo for Article 25 Sick Leave. Whenever there were unauthorized absences, there were no appeal or arbitration rights. Mr. Stanley noted this item does not cost the City any money and everyone has access to first amendment rights. He advised the right of due process was outlined in the U.S. Constitution and, in some instances, an attorney was appointed for them. He thought to take away appeal or arbitration rights would not be a move in the right direction. Arbitration would provide a fresh look. The Union had strong concerns about Compassionate Leave. The Union wanted to include significant others under the provision. Mr. Stanley thought there may be a legal connotation associated with the item and noted it was not uncommon for significant others or partners to be covered. The Union wanted to keep the status quo with personnel files and records. There were no objections to having office files on employees but only the files in the Personnel Office could be used. The Union was prepared to Tentatively Agree to the Longevity Article. They did have questions about the MGT Study and but the City had pulled the item. The Union wanted the City to consider issuing sweatshirts under the article pertaining to Uniforms. Mr. Stanley advised it was common practice that employees were given a copy of the contract upon request. He acknowledged the contract was posted on the website. He indicated agreement in these areas would go a long way towards agreeing to a contract and having it ratified. Attorney Cherof asked if the Union had any written proposal or counter proposal to the draft contract they were provided. Mr. Stanley responded they did. Attorney Cherof asked if the Union would share it with the City. Mr. Stanley responded he did not think the City was prepared to walk through it at the meeting. Attorney Cherof explained Mr. Stanley had attended previous bargaining sessions, but it appeared Mr. Stanley thought this was the first collective bargaining session. A lot of work had gone into the draft and into exchanging proposals in written formats. He explained it was the City's expectation that they would receive responses to the draft contract at this meeting. The Collective Bargaining Agreement was a defined document. The City felt the best way to get through the process was go through the document, article by article, line by line if necessary. He expressed the City was bewildered with what appeared to be a return to the first bargaining 3 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Bargaining Session Boynton Beach, Florida November 2, 2007 session and the desire to talk generically about what the Union wanted. Attorney Cherof wanted to hear responses to the open articles. The Union responded, if the City compared the first proposal to the last proposal, with the exception for the Standby Pay and a few of the articles they TA'd, the proposals were the same as before. Attorney Cherof thought they may be at an impasse. Mr. Osborn responded that was why they wanted to have discussion. Attorney Cherof explained the recordings and minutes reflect the City had spent a lot of time explaining the basis of their proposals. Mr. Osborn contended if the parties wanted to discuss the minutes and their accuracy, they would. He asserted in prior negotiations the minutes were discussed and approved. He pointed out at the last meeting, Mr. Roberts was in attendance, the minutes reflected he was not. Additionally, at the last meeting the City made statements about being on time and just as the statement was completed, a management employee arrived and that member was reflected as being on time. Attorney Cherof pointed out the City commenced negotiations, however but the Union would not commence negotiations until the entire team had arrived. Attorney Cherof explained they were one hour and fifteen minutes into a two hour bargaining session that started thirty minutes late due to the Union being late, and the rest of the time was spent listening to generic policies and not one single substantive issue or one additional article of the contract was discussed or agreement reached. The Union explained they wanted to bring their concerns to them and advise why. The Union wanted to know why the City wanted items included. Attorney Cherof responded Ms. Goebelt had discussed many issues. Mr. Stanly explained he thought he was being very specific. He asserted if the attorneys left the process, the parties could reach accord on their own. He pointed out the City could meet on City time, but the Union did not have the same opportunity. He proposed having time equal on both sides. He alleged the City wanted the Union to meet after hours and look at City issues. Mr. Stanley thought it would be fair to do the preparation work and negotiate after hours. The parties were back to square one and advised they would meet when the City wanted to meet, but they wanted to have an eight hour meeting, but do things equally. The Union explained they did not see any reason why concessions should be made. He reasserted the City was not strapped for dollars and announced they see a form of regressive bargaining taking place and at the same time the troops are being stirred up. Mr. Stanley reported the Union would not lie to their employees. He cautioned the City to advise members as of management, running lose with employees and making irresponsible comments, such the Union was delaying the process. Attorney Cherof asked for the names of individuals who were heard to have made comments. Mr. Osborn reported Mr. Bressner made comments at the West Water Treatment Plant. Mr. Stanley explained collective bargaining was about two parties being able to openly discuss and resolve issues that are causing grief and there was always room for improvement. It was explained Collective Bargaining was a defined document that outlined what the parties agree to and to denigrate the document was regressive. The Union believed the City was regressing, but expressed, if the parties applied themselves correctly, they could move forward. Mr. Stanley explained they came in with a shortlist to try and expedite the matter. Attorney Cherof pointed out the Union shortlist was 23 items and only 2 were specifically referenced Article numbers. Mr. Stanley advised he believed at least two members of the City negotiating team were aware of what articles were being discussed. 4 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Bargaining Session Boynton Beach, Florida November 2, 2007 The City caucused at 11:31 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 11:47 a.m. Attorney Cherof asked if the Union had any written proposals on any of the articles. Mr. Stanley responded he had no new ones. The City advised they were going to break for the day and evaluate two issues. They would evaluate when the next bargaining session would be, for how long and whether a longer session would be productive or counterproductive in the bargaining process as opposed to shorter periods. He explained they would give due consideration to the Union's thoughts that a longer session would be more productive. They would also evaluate whether they were at a bargaining impasse and whether it would be timely, appropriate, and helpful, to request PERC send a hearing officer to help resolve the open issues of the contract. Attorney Cherof would respond back to Mr. Stanley directly with both answers. Mr. Marks requested the meetings not take place on Mondays so he could be present. Attorney Cherof explained they would leave that to the Union bargaining team to determine when they collectively could meet. It was noted the Union was available to negotiate on evenings or on weekends. If they were not, they should let the City know and if the City determined they could continue to bargain with the Union, they would consider those issues as well. The meeting ended at 11 :49 a.m. C C1wtll Qj !L6a,umCU}\ Catherine ct4rry~~u1;erman "- Recording Secretary 110607 5