Loading...
Minutes 12-13-07 MINUTES OF THE BLUE COLLAR BARGAINING SESSION BETWEEN THE NCF&O AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM B, AT 9:00 A.M. ON DECEMBER, 13, 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 Shellie Sewell, Attorney NCF&O (Arrived 9:30 a.m.) Jeff Mark, U.S., NCF&O Public Service Unit of SEIU Mike Osborn, U.S., NCF&O Kalem Mahd, U.S., NCF&O At 9:10 a.m. the collective bargaining session between the City of Boynton Beach NCF&O and SEIU for the Blue Collar Bargaining Contract meeting began. The City was ready to proceed. Ms. Goebelt, HR Director, advised she just received a memo from Mike Stanley, of the Union, that he was ill and Shellie Sewell was being prepped and would arrive by 9:30 a.m. The City went off record. Ms. Sewell arrived at 9:30 a.m. A sign in sheet was circulated and the meeting resumed at 9:30 a.m. Self-introductions were made. Attorney Cherof advised they had a closed door session with the City Commission and City Manager to review the status of the bargaining. They were given the authority to conclude bargaining with the Union on all issues that were open. Mr. Marks felt the minutes were not being recorded and used a tape recorder. Mr. Cherof offered to review the open articles, which were: Article: 8 - Union Representation Article 12 - Progressive Discipline Article 13 - Grievance and Arbitration Procedures Article 14 - Basic Work Week and Overtime Article 15 - Task Assignment - Solid Waste Article 16 - Work Breaks Article 18 - Wages Article 20 - Standby and Call Back Pay Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 Article 25 - Sick Leave Article 28 - Vacation Article 29 - Bonus Days and Bonus Increases Article 31 - Compassionate Leave Article 34 - Unauthorized Absence Article 40 - Uniforms Article 41 - Insurance Article 42 - Personnel Files Article 45 - Dues Deduction Article 49 - Longevity Benefit Article 52 - Posting of Agreement Article 54 - Duration The Union felt Articles 10 and 8 were switched around and requested Article 10, Union Time Pool be added to the list of noted open articles. Attorney Cherof asked if there were any articles listed that they were in agreement on that should be taken off the list and discussed further. The Union did not put any articles forward. The Union caucused at 9:45 a.m. The meeting resumed at 9:57 a.m. Attorney Sewell requested the City make its presentation and they would review and take notes. Article 10 was discussed. Mr. Cherof explained they showed that article as being agreed on October 23, 2007 after first being discussed on July 17, 2007. There was agreement Article 10 was not open. Mr. Cherof requested feedback on the Union's proposal dated September 12, 2007. For the last two bargaining sessions, they were looking for feedback on the written document. The ground rules that were agreed to at the beginning of the bargaining sessions were that each parties would be prepared to bargain. Ms. Sewell explained they have seen what the City presented, and what concession they were being asked to make. The Union's position was not to make any concessions especially since the Union had not heard anything about financial hardship on the City's end. She explained most of the contract would remain status quo. Attorney Cherof explained it was public knowledge the impact of the impending tax reform and the effects it would have on the City. He emphasized there was a cap on revenue, rollbacks of all types, elimination of positions and vacant positions that remained unfilled. He did not understand why the Union was taking the position that the City has not expressed what the fiscal situation was that drove the proposal. There was also a constitutional amendment coming due for a vote in January, plus what was 2 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 already announced by the State Legislature about what they would do further in their next legislative session. Attorney Sewell acknowledged the issue, and explained different cities handle things differently. Mr. Osborn acknowledged the fiscal issues, but expressed, on a different matter, he did not understand why the City wanted to punish employees for using sick time or why the City wanted to change disciplinary articles that were consistent in the City; when they had not discussed changing any other departments except for theirs. They were told they would be the protype for the AVL system and it was a fiscal problem. He explained the City pushed this on the Union and promised it would be consistent throughout the City and it was not. He inquired, under those circumstances, how could they trust the City. Mr. Cherof explained they did not approach this contract with the thought it would be exactly equal in parity to all others. Their duty was to bargain, not a contract of "me too" clauses. Mr. Osborn explained that's what they were trying to do, but when they brought up the me too's the City indicated they are not bargaining that way and then the City offered a proposal that was "me too", or consistent, with everyone else's. Mr. Cherof explained they look at what is expedient for the bargaining unit, operationally justifiable and fiscally responsible. He explained sometimes it was good to have uniformity and sometimes it was not; there were different problems for one group as opposed to other groups or other bargaining units which they seek to address through collective bargaining, and the articles. There were costs associated with them, and everything linked back to fiscal or operational issues. Mr. Osborn felt everything they originally asked for, the City said no to and they were just trying to keep what they had and extra. Mr. Mark felt the City was taking away certain rights such as grievance and arbitration procedures and the right to grieve employee evaluations. Attorney Cherof explained employees never had the right to grieve performance evaluations although there was one matter that had gone to arbitration. Mr. Osborn did not think employees should be penalized for taking sick time and having it reflected on their evaluations. He indicated Chuck Magazine, Risk Manager, explained in the Safety Newsletter that if employees are sick, they should stay home. He agreed there should be language for people who abuse sick time, and that was an issue to discuss with the employee, but not the Union. Mr. Cherof suggested Mr. Osborn find a spot in the contract for a provision and they would work on language with them. The language on page 48, which was Article 25, Sick Leave, was discussed. Mr. Osborn read the article and felt they had language for sick time but it should not be in the article. The City felt it had the right to deal with people who abused sick leave. Mr. Osborn also did not believe employees should be penalized for being late through no fault of their own. He explained some managers were sticklers. Ms. Goebelt explained the City was 3 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 looking for consistency and to give employees and supervisors the tools to determine what and when an issue was disciplinary. There was agreement tardiness was grounds for disciplinary actions and it was a case by case basis. Tardiness could also affect evaluation scores. Mr. Mark explained he did not see anything about it in the management PPM and it was in the employees' manual. He also noted not all supervisory personnel, such as the lead operators, are under the PPM. Some of them were hourly and not exempt, and some of them were some of the worst abusers. The City took a break at 10: 18 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 a.m. The City proposed the following language 25.7.2.a and b, the City will delete a and b, which were the charts. In Section 25.8.1, they will delete the word "no" member" and insert, "g, member shall be placed on restrictive sick leave unloss, when a pattern of sick leave abuse is present and the employee has had a counseling session with the director or department head or with his/her designee" They would add a new Section 25.8.4 to explain when discipline and when performance evaluations can be affected in this circumstance. "Abuse of sick leave is grounds for disciplinary action and can affect a performance evaluation when the sick leave is taken for reasons other than actual illness, or when the employee has been placed on restricted sick leave." It was explained this way it only pertained to abusers. Mr. Osborn spoke about the provision where individuals having impending criminal charges have to use available vacation or sick time. Illness was defined as when employees go to a doctor visit, or sickness as opposed to extended weekend vacations. Mr. Osborn explained in the disciplinary article that pertained to habitually late employees who do not have a valid reason for their lateness, it was also under misconduct which could be used in progressive discipline. Mr. Cherof explained that was how it was tied all together. Ms. Goebelt also pointed out Article 25.7.2 was reduced from five days to three days. Ms. Sewell wanted to see what the City was proposing for other articles. Mr. Cherof felt if they did not conclude with one article, they could not move on to the other articles and they would never get done. The Union caucused at 10:37 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:45 a.m. Ms. Sewell reported the Union was agreeable to 25.7.2, 25.7.3. They were fine with deleting 25.7. a and b removing the chart. Section 25.8.1 remained status quo with the 4 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 two word changes. They were fine with the additional language regarding the designee on 25.8.1. and in Section 25.8.4., the new paragraph, strike ~ and add abuse. Abuse was defined as a pattern of leave. The Union agreed to those changes. A definition for abuse as follows: "Abuse of sick leave occurs when employee uses sick leave for reasons other than illness. In those instances the employee can be disciplined or the abuse can affect their employee evaluation". The Union caucused at 10:48 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:57 a.m. Ms. Sewell explained they were fine with "Abuse of sick leave occurs when employee uses sick leave for reasons other than illness." Article 25 was TA'd (Tentatively Agreed on). The parties discussed the use of sick and vacation time associated with impending criminal charges. If the employee was found innocent or the State Attorney's office dropped the charges, not as a result of a plea deal, those would be the trigger to return the employee to work and to restore the employee's bank of time. The above was Article 12.9, which was distributed on October 23, 2007. Presently, employees in this situation took leave without pay on their own initiative. Sometimes the City initiated independent administrative investigations and proceeded with discipline. In those instances the employee was put on paid administrative leave. This would be on a case by case basis, and it depended on the issue. Ms. Sewell inquired, if the charges were unrelated to work, if employees were put on administrative leave and then they get caught and charges brought, how it would be handled. Mr. Cherof explained the last few times this occurred, the employee had been on administrative leave without pay. He explained this would be the new standard. It was noted there was a statute which pertained to the hiring of felons. Ms. Goebelt was not aware of any employees having felony convictions at the moment. Existing employees who were convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors were generally terminated from employment. The Union caucused at 11 :00 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 11 :08 a.m. Ms. Sewell expressed concern regarding Article 12.9, which was a handout, when the employee was the subject of the investigation because the employee was taking the financial hit during the investigation. Mr. Cherof explained the trigger was not the arrest, 5 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 it was the charge. He clarified ,if charged, an employee can, on their own initiative, take unpaid leave and use their time. If they are not charged, all was well. If officially charged, depending on the circumstances, if the City wants them to be on a leave, they could be on paid leave. Sometimes the City could initiate its own independent administrative investigation. If found innocent, the employee would receive a restoration of their time used. It was the City's call. The City was not receptive to extending this provision to employees caught up in circumstances. The consequence of being found guilty was termination. Ms. Sewell explained this was part of the larger Article 12. The City noted there was a grammatical change under misconduct 12.2.1 (the word individuals). Offenses constituting Misconduct was reviewed. The first offense for Extreme or Unlawful Misconduct was dismissal The City would keep the status quo. Examples of misconduct were given to clarify all the subcategories. The City reviewed all the prior incidents of discipline and when there were situations involving extreme or unlawful misconduct, the recommendation was for termination. It was a high liability issue for the City. The City explained the entire section was worded to recognize progressive discipline. Examples were only examples and actual discipline was fact sensitive and may vary from the guidelines. The City wanted employees to know that incidents in these categories jeopardized their jobs on the first occurrence and it emphasized how the City felt about those violations. Ms. Sewell thought it should be very clear when the section was read as to what actions could bring suspension or terminated as opposed to just being terminated. The City explained supervisors do not have the authority to suspend employees. Mr. Osborn thought the language "including but not limited to" could be ambiguous. Attorney Cherof gave a history of the section and where the list came from. Ms. Sewell indicated the Union's proposal was to keep the box of offenses status quo. First occurrence would be suspension without pay and then second one would be dismissal. Mr. Osborn discussed discipline counseling forms where language would be provided for the employee to sign they were made aware of the issue, as opposed to agreeing to the content. This was to avoid having discipline forms put in files without the employee's knowledge. Section 12.5.A, Written Counseling, shall have the sentence in strikethough put back in, which reads, "The employee shall be required to sign the form signifying that he/she has read and discussed the contents with the supervisor and the signature does not indicate agreement with the contents." Presently, there was an area where the employee could offer comment to protest. There was also a provision that employees could submit comments for inclusion in the record. Mr. Osborn felt information gathered on the employee was used on evaluations, and the Union felt they should be made aware of those issues. Mr. Cherof thought what the Union was trying to impose would operationally bring the City to a standstill. Supervisors were encouraged to keep records, but the Union felt using that methodology the employee's 6 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 would have no way to know if they were doing anything wrong. The City agreed to delete "Refusal to sign Disciplinary Form" as constituting misconduct and "C" would be deleted. There would, however, be language inserted that indicated they have to sign the form, but if they don't sign, there would not be negative consequences. Ms. Goebelt felt it was a mixed message. The intent was for the employee to see what was put before them and acknowledge that they received it. The employee shall sign, and if they did not, the supervisor would make a notation of such and have a witness. ''The employee shall sign the form signifying that he/she has read and discussed the contents with the supervisor. Such signature does not constitute agreement with the contents." was agreed upon by the parties. Mr. Cherof suggested the stewards obtain stamps with that language. The employee not signing the form would not be addressed. The Union felt the intent was just to have the employee be aware of the issue. Mr. Cherof felt a form unsigned by the employee who was formerly required to adhere to the language of the bargaining unit contract, demonstrated abhorrent behavior. The Union expressed as long as the employee took the appropriate steps, union stewards would be present with the employee for discipline. Article 12.5.A., Types of Disciplinary Action was discussed. Under Written Reprimand, the same clause as above was put back in about employees signing the form. In B, second paragraph, Written Reprimand, the same language from Section A, about the employee signing and was not an admission was added back in. Article 12.5.C., Suspensions without Pay was discussed and the third paragraph of the section should read, "suspensions of two or more days." The City wanted to keep it at three days and explained this conflicted with other language in the agreement in Article 12.6, Right to Pre-determination Hearing. The passage should read, "beyond two working days." Language in the first sentence was changed from three to two days. Ms. Goebelt referenced Article 12.6 - Right to Pre-determination Hearings. Other suspensions without pay require prior concurrence with Human Resources. The next sentence would read "all other suspensions without pay required prior concurrence with Human Resources." There were no objections to those language changes. Article 13, Grievances and Arbitration Procedures. There was a change from an act "of' omission, should be act "or" omission. The whole purpose of the predetermination was to determine facts to make a recommendation. Ms. Sewell asked what if there was a dispute. Attorney Cherof explained an employee could say here are facts the City didn't take into consideration. The purpose of the predetermination hearing is to gather facts that would constitute a defense or mitigation to a recommendation for discipline. This is information the employee brings forward. This is to ensure an employee doesn't fabricate testimony. 7 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 Mr. Cherof noted it was important to state it was part of the discipline. Immunity was not granted to anyone. This is what the City does and it was important the employees be aware of it. The intent was for the employees to be aware of the process. The Union caucused at 11 :59 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:12 p.m. Ms. Sewell suggested wrapping up. She was under the impression the City was putting forward a proposal. Mr. Cherof explained they were going through the contract article by article as they were opened and would bargain. There was agreement they would stop at 2:00 p.m. The parties agreed to take a short break at 12:15 p.m. The meeting resumed at 12:26 p.m. Article 12.6, the Union was fine with the new language put forward in the article. The chart on extreme and unlawful misconduct would remain as it was. A verbal warning not constituting discipline was agreed on. Article 12 was TA'd. Grievance and Arbitration, Article 13 was not addressed at the meeting. Article 40 Uniforms. The Union previously discussed when employees were waiting on uniforms to be replaced. Many workers were in the field and the uniforms got wet or dirty. The Union would like to have two sweatshirts for employees without having to fill out a request. This was in compliance with an MOU. The City explained forms were previously distributed with the paychecks to the departments. It appeared the forms were not distributed to the employees in the department. Mr. Jenkins explained the warehouse was fully stocked with them. The City inquired about any other cost issues associated with the article. The Union felt if an employee was waiting for another uniform and there was a lag time involved between time of request and waiting for the new one, that employees would not be docked. The City caucused at 12:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:38 p.m. Article 40.1 dealing with newly hired employees, the City agreed to add two sweatshirts, and delete the "August 1st of each year upon submission of a request form.) language. In Article 40.5, the City agreed to add all bargaining unit member employees get two 8 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 sweatshirts on or about August 1 st of every year. There would be no form involved. Mr. Cherof noted if an employee was hired near August, the provision would not apply for the employee to receive another two sweatshirts. The parties agreed the section would read the employees would receive two sweatshirts, "annually". Mr. Osborn noted the uniform delivery date keeps being moved back six weeks. He thought it should be from the time they received the uniform rather than from the time they order them. Article 52, Posting of Agreement was discussed. This article remained status quo and the Union agreed to pay $300 toward the cost of the copies. Newly hired employees would also be given copies and there was agreement to take out the word "distribution" and add "they would be available for pickup and they would be required to sign when they picked it up." The City would post the agreement on the website and the Human Resource Department and Clerk's office would always have a hard copy as would each division. This provision applied to anyone covered by the Union. This article was TA'd. Article 13, the Safety Article was TA'd previously. There was a short discussion about safety shoes. Payment for the shoes occurs in December. Article 49, Longevity. The City accepted the Union's proposal of no change. Progress made showed Articles 49,52, 12,25, were agreed on. Article 29, Bonus Days and Bonus Increases were discussed. Mr. Cherof explained the City's position was this was a cash benefit and they wanted a uniform cash benefit for all bargaining unit employees, which was the cash value of eight hours. Mr. Marks felt then it wasn't a bonus day, and some employees work ten hours a day consistently because of the type of work they did. It was explained the hours go into the employee's pool of hours. If an employee donated sick time to another employee, the bonus would not be affected. Ms. Sewell requested the City consider Article 16, Work Breaks, as status quo. They were open to Article 29 as proposed for eight hours and the rest status quo. The City was not ready to do that. Mr. Cherof offered if the Union accepted Article 29, they would withdraw their proposal on Article 8, which was to reduce Union Conference time from 20 to 10 days, returning it to 20 days. The City explained they would get Article 4 and they would withdraw their proposal in Article 8.6. The Union caucused at 1 :06 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1 :09 p.m. 9 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 The Union agreed to the status quo on 8.6 for Article 29. Articles 29 and 8 were TA'd. Article 41, Insurance was discussed. Ms. Goebelt explained she cut and pasted this from the Police Benevolent Association contract. There would be a benefit committee who will advise. The only change was the City would pay the total medical vision and dental premium for all bargaining unit members. The members will pay the full cost of medical, vision and all but $7 of dental insurance for their dependents. Existing coverage levels and benefits shall remain in effect until at least September 30, 2008. A fourth plan was offered this year. The plan is costing less for dependent coverage and also has higher co-pays. It was an optional plan at the time. In the event the City changes benefit options for employees after September 30, 2008, the coverage for the employees and their dependents may be amended from time to time. In this connection, should the employee's cost of dependent coverage increase more than 15%, during any fiscal year, the City agrees to open this article for the purpose of bargaining. The coverage could be changed during the contract timeframe. The word equivalent was removed and the City agreed to open the article if the coverage changed. All else remained status quo. The parties discussed one vendor covered all bargaining units. Ms. Goebelt explained they planned to go out to bid and they would invite a vendor recommended by the Union to bid. Ms. Sewell noted this was only a one year contract. Mr. Jenkins left the meeting at 1:28 p.m. and returned at 1:29 p.m. The language was discussed at length. Mr. Cherof did feel there was room for movement on this article and the City provided coverage as best it could. The Union caucused at 1 :31 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1 :40 p.m. The Union explained if they could get a two year agreement, they could accept the article. The City caucused at 1 :43 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1 :45 p.m. The parties discussed when to end the meeting. It was agreed the meeting would end at 2 p.m.. Mr. Cherof explained if they commit to a two year contract, they would need to know the proposal for wages on year two. Mr. Osborn explained the last year of the white collar was a 2% increase with a 2-4% merit. 10 Meeting Minutes NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session Boynton Beach FL December 13, 2007 The Union caucused at 1 :40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1 :41 p.m. Ms. Sewell proposed something to include insurance, the duration and the wages. They were okay with Insurance in 41.1 as proposed. They wanted a two year agreement tied in as in Article 54. For Wages, they wanted in year one, the current proposal which was 5% with a 2-4% merit, and second year being 2% with 2-4% merit. They proposed in year one receiving retroactive pay from October 1 st and anyone exceeding the cap receive a lump sum bonus. The Union noted there were probably no impacted employees receiving a lump sum this year, but there would be a minimal amount of employees next year. The City caucused at 1 :54 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1 :59 p.m. Mr. Cherof spoke about the lump sum and proposed leaving the cap in place with no payout over the cap for a two year contract, it would have no impact this year, little next year, and then the parties would be back bargaining. The Union felt they needed to know the numbers before they could agree. Mr. Cherof explained this would be a good stopping point. There were still some other articles open tied to it All agreed it was a good meeting with a lot of progress made. He thought as it pertained to what they talked about, it would be helpful to negotiate with the same group of people. The meeting closed at 2:02 p.m. CO:J.kwit (Jk ' Catherine Cherry JUt Recording Secretary 011708 11