Minutes 01-31-08
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 JANUARY 31, 2008, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PRESENT:
For the City of Boynton Beach
For NCF&O
Sharyn Goebelt, Human Resources Director
Marylee Coyle, Assistant Human Resources Director
Bobby Jenkins, Assistant Finance Director
Michael Low, Deputy Utilities Director
Mike Stanley, Chief
Spokesman, SEIU FPSU
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
Don Roberts, U.S., NCF&O
Jim Cherof, City Attorney
Jim Cherof, City Attorney, opened the meeting of the Blue Collar Bargaining Unit at 9:36
a.m. Self Introductions were made.
Mr. Cherof distributed a statement from the City Manager regarding his perception
about the outcome of the tax reform. Mike Stanley, Union spokesman, acknowledged
he was aware the tax reform was the City's main concern. Mr. Cherof explained the
City could not project too far forward on a multi year contract.
Both parties agreed they had a positive negotiating session the last time they met. This
session would likely last beyond the work day. Mr. Cherof explained at the last session
they were trying to package some of the remaining issues.
Mr. Stanley reviewed articles the Union was showing as open.
Article 13 - Grievance. Mr. Stanley expressed the Union felt strongly that there were
avenues that could be pursued that did not cost the City money as far as due process
was concerned. There was an alternative to arbitration, such as federal mediation.
They were in agreement with that. As long as they could take a grievance regarding
evaluations and portions of Article 34, dealing with grievances on unauthorized
absences or any discipline, they felt that it was fair that employees have due process
and go through different levels of management to review. If there was an impasse,
there needs to be a venue and an impartial party, i.e. mediation/arbitration. Having the
right to know there was a fully impartial procedure was good and they felt it was
important for morale.
1
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
The City noted the statute provided that the last step was for a third party neutral
provision. They were not disputing, with respect to a contract interpretation issues that
the parties had the right to go all the way to arbitration. The City's proposal for
grievance and arbitration was that historically there was a blending of performance and
discipline related issues into the concept of contract interpretation issues. The statute
allowed the taking of grievances over the interpretation of the collective bargaining
agreement to arbitration, but PERCs case law indicated it did not apply to disciplinary
issues as did the state court case law.
The City's proposal indicated for Counseling, which was a natural function of
employment and the right of a supervisor to counsel a subordinate, there was no reason
it would include or be an issue that would go to grievance or arbitration. Nor would
written reprimands or oral counseling because those were not necessarily disciplinary in
nature. The only other issues put into the category were performance evaluations,
because there was no practical way for 1,000 employees to grieve evaluations to
arbitration. The City was not suggesting there may not be a way to have a review
process for performance evaluations, which they think is sort of in place with HR. The
City felt they could not agree to allow a counseling to go through the grievance process.
The current proposal included counseling, oral and written reprimands and performance
evaluations. The City explained the counseling was not a disciplinary issue. He
referred to the Disciplinary Article and explained it talked about the policy using the
reprimand to motivate employees. Mr. Cherof clarified the Progressive Discipline Article
which was previously T.A.'d, outlined those actions.
The Union inquired if there was a point in time when those reprimands come off the
record. Mr. Cherof explained they would not, but the older the discipline, the less
weight it had and that language was incorporated at the beginning of Article 2.6.
The City did not receive an inordinate amount of grievances regarding counseling or
reprimands. The Union took Article 13 under advisement.
Mike Stanley explained the employees do not feel the review system is fair because
there was no impartial procedure and it was a morale issue. He thought maybe the
review process should be reviewed.
Article 14 - Basic Work Week and Overtime. The section regarding computation of
hours after a holiday was an issue to the Union
Article 15 - Task Assignment - Solid Waste. The City had a proposal and the Union
was reviewing that. They hoped to tie in some issues with it.
Article 16 - Work Breaks. The Union wanted to maintain the status quo.
2
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
Article 18 - Wages. The Union wanted a two year contract with 5% across the board,
retroactive to October of 2007. They were looking for a 2-4% on evaluations beginning
April 1 of 2008. The Union wanted to keep the lump sum. The second year would be 2-
4% on evaluations on April 1 st.
Mr. Stanley explained other cities have T A'd where the evaluations stayed in place and
those evaluations were from 0-5%. He felt that Boynton was efficient enough to have
that second year deal in place for the 2-4% on evaluations.
Article 20 - Call Back. The Union wanted to delete the language dealing with time
clocks and AVL's and use the log system previously used.
Article 28 - Vacation. The Union was reviewing.
Article 31 - Compassionate Leave. The Union was revisiting the article.
Article 34- Unauthorized Absence. The Union indicated there was strong interest in
making sure when there is an alleged unauthorized absence that it should be grieved.
There may be mitigating circumstances and they wanted the article to be addressed
Article 41 - Insurance. The Union was giving strong consideration to the City's proposal
on Insurance.
Article 42 - Personnel Policy - the Union had concerns about notes or letters included in
an employee's file appearing down the road when an issue arose.
The Union wanted the Human Resource files to be the official file location although
there are also department files kept on employees. They are concerned about the
purple slips kept in Utilities that were not brought to the attention of employees until their
evaluation. They felt if employees were made aware of the issue, they could address
the issue at that time. If the official file was in Human Resources, however, it was noted
how would one know if they were counseled?
The Union understood evaluations were supposed to be a year long process. Most
employees heard about their evaluations on the day they set their goals, on their six
month and yearly reviews. It was discussed supervisors should do a better job of
communicating what the employees are supposed to be doing and give direction
throughout the year and to have a record of that. The employees wanted the
opportunity to correct issues. And if the issue was not disciplinary, then don't use it as
disciplinary.
Mr. Cherof explained it was mostly used to show awareness, not to show discipline. He
explained if there is a Just Cause Hearing, they would have to show if an employee
3
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31,2008
broke the rule, that the employee had knowledge of the rule, and that breaking the rule
would result in discipline.
Mr. Osborne pointed out new employees were reviewed quarterly. But if a few months
after the probationary period was over, the employee did something he should not have
done, they review and see the employee was not told about what he did wrong. Mr.
Osborne felts some members of management were unethical and they purposely hid
issues to build a case. If the employee was made aware, however, they could stop
those behaviors.
Mr. Cherof advised they had ways to cure that on the City's side. and it was noted there
is a window to address issues.
Both parties agreed meeting once a week, or once a month at a minimum on an
ongoing basis, would be helpful to provide feedback.
Mr. Stanley wanted the record to reflect on the previous minutes of December 13, 2007,
the third full paragraph where it read, "Mr. Osborne felt .that everything originally asked
for, the City said no to and they were trying to keep what they had and extra." Mr.
Osborne clarified he said Mr. Cherof had come in at the August meeting and advised
the Commission said no to everything they proposed extra. They have not been
bargaining for extra, they were bargaining to keep what they had.
Page 5 of the same meeting pertaining to Article 12.9, the first large paragraph, where it
discussed the use of sick and vacation time, Mr. Osborne disagreed with the statement
when it read "presently one took leave without pay on their own initiative." He explained
one employee took leave on his own initiative and the other two were put on
administrative leave with pay and then forced into using their own vacation and sick
time.
On page 9, ending of top paragraph, last paragraph pertaining to .uniforms, where it
reads "from the time they receive the uniform rather than from the time they order
them." Mr. Osborne felt they should be able to order the uniforms the same time every
year rather than having to wait to receive them because sometimes it takes six weeks.
He wanted them to order the uniforms on the same date every year.
The City caucused at 10:22 a.m.
The meeting resumed at 10:54 a.m.
Mr. Cherof announced the City's offer, which was to accept the counter proposal on
Wages which was a "two-year deal, retroactive to October 1, 2007, 5% base wage
increase in year one, plus employees would receive a 2-4% evaluation on year one,
For year two, there would be a 2% base wage increase on October 1, 2008, another 2-
4
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31,2008
4% evaluation based increase on April1, 2009 and language regarding lump sum if
employees topped out as status quo would remain,
The City could accept that package with the following:
. The City's insurance proposal
. The City's proposal on Article 13, Grievances
. The City proposal on Article14.6 list
· The City's proposal on Article 16 and keeping the status quo on Articles 15, 20,
28, 32, 34, 42. list.
Article 54 - Duration was still open. Because of the City's fiscal concerns regarding
Article 54, they wanted a reopener if the State constitutional amendment passed, which
it did, so that language would be stricken. They would want a reopener if the State
legislature provided any additional revenue impacts this spring and if in the budget
proposal for this coming fiscal year, if there was a proposal that would result in the
elimination of any bargaining unit positions. If that occurred, they could review those
positions with the union and adjust the wages.
It was noted there was an misstatement made. Article 31 would remain status quo and
not Article 32.
The Union caucused at 11 :01 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 11 :24 a.m.
Mr. Stanley responded to the City's proposal.
The parties discussed Article 54, and if the City intended to leave Sept 30, 2008 in the
language in Section 54.1. The date would be changed to September 30, 2009 in both
places in that section.
Mr. Stanley tentatively agreed they have a Tentative Agreement on all referenced
articles except for two pieces. They were Article 13, the Grievance Procedure and
Article 14.6, the Basic Work Week and Overtime
The Union offered an alternative on grievance procedures and acknowledged the City
was opposed to evaluations going through grievance. The Union was interested in
having something put in place when employees felt evaluation scores were incorrect
and they had documentation on it. They wanted those employees go before the Labor
Management Committee and have the committee make the recommendation on the
evaluation. Then it would be a partnership between the Union and the City and would
assist with trust and peace of mind that there was a process.
5
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
The next issue was discussed by Don Roberts, regarding computation of overtime that
was specific to Cemetery workers. The Park Manager had spoken with Ms. Goebelt
about the computation of overtime after a holiday. He noted employees who work at the
cemetery on a Saturday get paid out the cemetery budget. All equipment and uniforms
are paid from that budget as well. Currently, the City is charging more for a funeral if it
was held on a holiday or weekend.
Mr. Stanley repeated the Wage offer and proposal for the record as the Union having
Tentative Agreement on:
· 5% retroactive pay back to October 1, 2007,
· 2-4% effective April 1 ,2008 would be based on 2008 evaluation scores
· October 1, 2008 2% across the board
· April 1, 2009, 2%-4% again according to evaluation scores.
· The lump sums for eligible employees would remain the status quo language
they currently had. if they were topped out they would receive the increase in a
lump sum.
· The contract would be a two-year contract.
· Article 54, Duration, the language was acceptable to the Union with the two date
changes of September 30,2009.
The Union requested the City give serious consideration on the two counter offers which
were Articles 13, Grievance and 14, Basic Work Week and Overtime.
The City clarified on the retroactive pay issue. In order to receive the retroactive pay,
the employee had to be employed on the date of ratification and be a current City
employee. There was discussion if an employee was hired in December, under the old
pay scale, and was not employed on the October 1, the date the new pay scale took
effect, if the retroactive pay would start at the point of their entry. Under those
circumstances, Mr. Cherof indicated they would be covered. The language would be
added "to be eligible for retroactive pay, the employee must the employed on the day of
ratification. "
The City wanted to add language to clarify the status quo on Article 34. Status quo to
the City meant absent without leave which would result in an employee not having a job.
The City considered it to be job abandonment when an employee decides not to come
back to work.
Ms. Goebelt explained an issue that needed to be discussed was the Commercial
Drivers License (CDL) physicals. The City explained they had the right to implement the
FDOT physicals which is required every two years. This was complying with a federal
mandate and the City planned to implement it. When the City implemented the
requirement, the Union grieved it.
6
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
Mr. Cherof explained he did not want that issue to go unspoken, If it should be included
in collective bargaining, the City would pay for the physicals.
The City wanted to add language that indicated an employee whose job description
required they hold a CDL license and who actually performed work using the CDL was
subject to the physical. There was a generic job description. Two people could have
the same job title, one drives one does not. The Union was amenable to looking at that
and Mr. Stanley suggested including the words "is a requirement of DOT" for the
physicals.
The parties agreed to break for lunch and to resume at 1 :30 p.m.
The meeting recessed at 11 :42 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 1 :42 p.m.
Mr. Cherof explained there were new handouts reflecting dates which he reviewed as
follows:
Article 18 - Wages. The language was changed to Unions counter proposal which the
City accepted.
Article 38.5 -Safety and Health. New language to try to explain the CDL license as it
was required by regulations, the City will implement and pay for it would be added.
Article 54 - Duration contained the language previously discussed.
The City advised they considered the last two issues the Union raised and the City was
not in a position to accept either one. This was the evaluation issue. The City thought
the language in 18.6 of the wage article contained in the new handout, addressed
labor management and the way inequities were dealt with.
In recent grievances, Ms. Goebelt explained her role and Human Resource's role in
regard to what employees thought was an inappropriate process, or personality conflict.
Human Resources monitored those issues. The City thinks they can improve that side.
The totality of evaluation scores resulting in money to bargaining employees showed a
positive trend. The City does not see anything to deal with other than to expressly
indicate employees cannot take an evaluation and move it through the grievance
process. Mr. Cherof was not aware of any other public sectors that had done so and
explained it was too burdensome and costly to do so. The City indicated it could not
initiate that, but expressed they did want to work to resolve the issues the Union felt
were inequities in the process.
7
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31,2008
Ms. Goebelt explained the Labor Management Committee exists and when the
performance standards were in place it would significantly help. The supervisors would
know what their expectations were. Ms. Goebelt advised for the record, the
performance standards were needed and she could commit if the Union could commit,
to start the labor management process, but they needed the language they proposed
that dealt with the grievance side of it.
On the issue of a distinctive fund to fund overtime after a holiday for Cemetery workers,
the City advised there are different employees on a City wide basis that are paid from
special funds. It raised an issue of equity and fairness across the board, and one group
should not be treated differently than another group. The City's goal was to align itself
with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which specified overtime is based on hours actually
worked.
Mr. Cherof advised with the handout submitted, the City feels they have a contract that
was worthy of submitting for ratification and felt comfortable that the City Commission
would ratify it as well. They would clarify any issues that needed to be clarified. This
was the City's last and best offer.
The Union caucused at 1 :51 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 2:33 p.m. Mr. Stanley showed the meeting reconvened at
2:35 p.m.
Mr. Stanley advised the four handouts submitted by the City were acceptable and they
were TA'd.
The Union agreed with Article 18, Wages in its entirety and would TA.
The Union agreed to TA Article 38.5 language
Article 54, Duration language as discussed in its entirety was TA'd
Mr. Stanley commented on the City's position that all groups of employees should be
treated equally, and understood the Labor Management Committee on certain items.
He explained to get a TA on everything, they would withdraw their proposal on
Overtime, but wanted to keep the status quo for the Grievance Procedure language.
The Union felt the City had not demonstrated they've had a problem with grievances
and felt it was giving employees rights away as a serious issue. Mr. Cherof explained
the status quo was not sufficient because of the arbitrator's ruling.
Mr. Stanley explained the arbitrator indicated if they would grieve the entire process,
they need to grieve specific things and they wanted the language left alone. It was
suggested if they start incurring grievances over evaluations and counseling, they
8
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
should convene a labor management committee meeting and discuss it. That was
proposed earlier and the City rejected it. The Union's final position was they were not
interested in any change in the grievance language and if there was a problem, to go to
labor management, otherwise they will T A on all.
Mr. Cherof responded the City could not agree because eight individuals in the
bargaining unit wanted to push the issue of grieving performance evaluations. The
majority of the employees were happy with their performance evaluations. They got an
arbitrators ruling and it opens up the flood gate for appeals over the actual individual
score on the evaluation. There was no limitation on that unless they wrote it in and the
City's proposal did. The City's position was a small handful of aggrieved employees who
were discontent over their performance evaluation would block the entire bargaining unit
agreement vote on an agreement that had money it in. There was the potential of that
kind of challenge of individual performance evaluations, and the City could not put all
the money they put on the table in wages. Hence the two articles were linked. Mr.
Cherof hoped the Union would reconsider their position on the issue, but it was a major
potential monetary issue for the City. They did not want to leave the wage article open
on the table, especially the retroactive pay knowing there was that kind of monetary
exposure on evaluations.
Mr. Stanley inquired if they reached an agreement that performance evaluations would
not be grieved, what the City's position was regarding keeping the counseling and
written reprimand as the old status quo written language. These were in Article 12.2 of
the old proposal and would be 13.2 (a) in the new proposal.
The Union proposed it would read status quo on counseling, and oral and written
reprimands, less performance evaluations. Mr. Cherof explained they were not taking
counseling to arbitration because there was a cost associated with that.
An animated discussion ensued. The Union asserted the only thing that held the
agreement up was the City's position on the matter and that there were no issues the
City could show the Union about grievances that pertained to reprimands, counsellings
and written warnings. The Union further indicated the City wanted to change the
language that would take away rights to grieve when the Union offered language to go
to the labor management committee instead of arbitration, and the City was not
interested.
The City responded the Union was allowing a handful of members to pursue a
grievance to arbitration at great cost to the City and the Union was in no position to
control how many counseling memos go on to grievance and arbitration. There was the
potential expense. The City's position was the labor management committee was not a
substitute for management. Mr. Stanley felt the Union was misinformed. Mr. Cherof
explained this was a progressive process and he was trying to explain why the issue did
not work for the City. Not all bargaining unit employees had issues with their
9
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
performance evaluations. The item was moved forward for a handful of people that
came to the bargaining unit table.
Mr. Stanley explained he had no problem advising the Union members why they
reached an impasse or agreement and he would also advise them the contract did not
allow them to grieve something they previously had the right to.
Mr. Cherof suggested putting the contract forward for ratification and letting the Union
members make the decision.
Mr. Stanley explained if they give up the right to grieve, removed the evaluation process
and left the old language in place on the other issues, they would consider the
evaluation process as something separate.
The City questioned if counseling was not discipline, why would they have the right to
grieve it.
Mr. Stanley felt if an employee requested an audience, they should receive one. Mr.
Cherof explained they do receive one with their supervisor and there was no penalty.
Mr. Stanley wanted to review written reprimands, which was a step of discipline. He
expressed employees should grieve written reprimands. Mr. Cherof asked how far down
the line do they grieve? Mr. Stanley explained mediators do not cost anything, they
offered to put that language in the contract in labor management committee and City
said no.
Mr. Cherof explained having an employee sitting in a labor management committee cost
money.
Mr. Stanley wanted the City to supply the Union with the information that justified their
position, and asserted if the City did not provide the justification; it could not show cause
to say the flood gates would open. The Union felt if they took the language out, it took
employee's rights away.
The Union provided an offer, and inquired if they agreed not to grieve per evaluation,
would the City leave the language for counseling and oral reprimands.
Mr. Cherof explained his issue with a written reprimand was to avoid the cost with
arbitration and the futility of moving a counseling directive forward to grievance. He
indicated if they could find an alternate route to end it without the cost, they were open
to discussion. Mr. Stanley explained they could do it through federal mediation which
was binding. Mr. Stanley had no issue following a recommendation of a federal
mediator and thought they would follow the recommendations made if it was put in the
contract. The issue would be discussed further.
10
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
Mr. Osborne spoke about pay for performance plan and explained every year
employees want to file grievances. This year, they had different circumstances and they
moved forward with a class action suit. Labor Management could hear issues of this
nature. He explained if the supervisor made a mistake and if he could justify he met the
criteria, then someone else should make the decision that the supervisor was wrong.
He explained over the years the employees wanted to address it, and it was not
addressed. Mr. Cherof explained the bargaining unit got good scores.
Mr. Osborne explained the bargaining unit was the only unit whose average score went
down. He explained he wanted labor management to review it and gave a proposal.
The City decided to take a break and consider either to go back to the original language
in the bargaining agreement with respect to the right to move forward and challenge a
written reprimand and remove the language pertaining to evaluations. The other
alternative was consider using the services of a federal mediator with no cost
associated with it, to provide a recommendation on that and the parties will follow the
recommendation.
The City caucused at 3:00 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:13 p.m.
The City offered a compromise as follows:
In the 12-13 versions, page 21 in Section12.4.2, the language underlined would be
changed to read "verbal and written counseling will not be subject to Administrative
Review by Human Resource."
On page 25, Section 12.7.3 first line, delete the word "counseling".
Page 27, Section 13.2.a. delete language added at the end in the last sentence and put
"counseling and performance evaluations cannot be grieved." That leaves in place the
Unions right to grieve all else including written reprimands because the language is
already there.
Mr. Cherof explained they do not need the mediation piece. The City already has a
process in place and there would be nothing to prevent the City to agree to use a third
party on a case-by-case basis. The process in place seems to work and still gives the
Union the opportunity to challenge everything else other than counseling and
evaluations.
Mr. Osborne asked why the City believed it would be too costly to go before labor
management. He did not want to see this year's evaluation scores going down and the
11
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
issue was an ongoing matter. He hoped they could find some understanding that
employees were valuable.
Mr. Cherof advised if we had an agreement, the City needed about 30 minutes to make
the final changes, then they would initial every page.
The Union caucused at 3: 19 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:41 p.m.
Mr. Cherof reviewed the language changes.
On page 21 of the 12-13-07 proposal, Section 12.4.2 would read "verbal and written
counseling will not be subject to administrative review by Human Resources." It deleted
the word "warnings."
Page 25, Section 7.3 would delete the word. . . Actions of "counseling."
On page 27, the last sentence would read, "Counseling and performance evaluations
cannot be grieved." That left in place all other procedures for challenging everything
else.
The Union caucused at 3:46 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 3:50 p.m.
Mr. Stanley advised with the explanations given, the Union accepted all the changes.
Mr. Cherof requested the Union stand by, and within one half hour they could TA.
The parties recessed at 3:51 p.m.
The parties reconvened at 4:35 p.m.
Mr. Cherof reviewed each article.
The signature page needed to be signed by the Union Representative and the City
Manager before the City Commission ratified it. Ms. Goebelt would provide a
summary review of changes and would advise supervisors of all changes.
Mr. Stanley announced they would try to get the document to a vote next week. The
parties reached a tentative agreement subject to ratification by the respective bodies.
The Union would deliver a signed version to the City. Ms. Goebelt requested the Union
provide a written request for the vote and the City anticipated ratification by the City
12
Meeting Minutes
NCF&O Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
January 31, 2008
Commission Tuesday, February 19, 2008. Ms. Goebelt would request the ratification be
noted on the agenda as future agenda item.
The meeting ended at 4:58 p.m.
~.~- ~u.biAJmMt
Catherine Cherry-Guberman
Recording Secretary
021408
13