Loading...
Minutes 08-20-08 MINUTES OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATION SESSION BETWEEN IAFF LOCAL 1891 AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, HELD ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2008, AT 8:30 A.M. IN THE FIRE/POLICE TRAINING ROOM, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present: For the City: For the Union: Bill Bingham, Fire Chief Dean Kinser, President Ray Carter, Deputy Chief of Operations Robert Kruse, Vice President Sharyn Goebelt, Human Resources Director Larry Lederhandler, Treasurer Thomas Murphy, Jr. Secretary Miguel Reyes, Executive Board Member J.C. Julia, Business Agent Absent: Adam Turey, Executive Board Member Opening Bill Bingham, Boynton Beach Fire Chief, opened the session at 8:34 a.m. Self introductions were made. Chief Bingham advised he wished to come as close as possible to concluding the negotiations. Article 12, Group Insurance. Mr. Kinser referred to Section 1.A, which required all policies be reviewed annually. As the City would no longer provide the four plans previously offered and would be offering only one plan, Mr. Kinser believed the Union should have the opportunity to impact bargain for any modifications to cost and coverage negotiated by the City. Ms. Goebelt pointed out the 2% consultant fee for dependent coverage had previously been borne by the members. With the plan change, the City would fund 100% of the fee. She also pointed out the plan did not change merely for the membership, but for all City employees, retirees, and other organizations that had interlocal agreements. She contended this helped preserve jobs, saved more than $800,000 for all funds and approximately $555,000 for the general fund. The Union understood the change was made as a result of economic hardship, and Ms. Goebelt assured the cooperation of the members was appreciated. Dean Kinser, Local 1891 President, believed the language in Section 1A was sufficient, as the standard practice had been for the Union to participate in annual insurance reviews, especially in the event of any modifications. He pointed out the Union had performed its due diligence with respect to Article 12. Meeting Minutes IAFF Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida August 20, 2008 Ms. Goebelt noted the City was currently working with Blue Cross Blue Shield to track all fire claims separately. Her only concern related to the following language in Section 1.A: “Types of coverage currently in effect shall not be reduced.” There would be no way to guarantee coverage would not be reduced, as this factor could only be determined by the economy. The Union wanted the opportunity to impact bargain if benefits were to change. Mr. Kinser pointed out the second sentence, which provided an opportunity for the Union to make the modifications that benefited both the City and the Union had been mutually agreed upon. Ms. Goebelt advised the language proposed by the City was consistent with all three police contracts, as well as the blue collar and white collar contracts. The language read as follows: “In the event the City can provide for alternative benefit options for employees, then the health insurance coverage for employees and their dependents may be amended from time to time.” Mr. Kinser advised the Union did not wish to entertain the 15% increase for dependent coverage. While the Union was open to negotiating with the City, the Union did not want benefits to be reduced. Health insurance was a benefit, and any changes to benefits should not be made without Union consideration. Additionally, the Union opposed language in the contract that would waive its right to impact bargain. It was noted by Union members that the benefits had changed drastically through the Insurance Committee. Mr. Carter contended the Union understood the impact of the changes to the insurance plan and why they were necessary. He pointed out, upon receiving word from the insurance carrier of an increase or other change in benefits, Ms. Goebelt was required to explore options that would minimize the impact created by the changes. It was Ms. Goebelt’s belief that even if she were merely to look into the possibility of reducing benefits, she could be creating an unfair labor practice under the terms of the current contract. Mr. Carter suggested tying language together in Section 1.A so that benefits could not be changed without the Union’s participation in the decision-making process. The Union caucused at 8:57 a.m. and returned at 9:05 a.m. The Union provided a rough draft of proposed language for Section 1.A as follows: “Types of coverage currently in effect shall not be changed unless mutually agreed upon on an annual basis, allowing the City to seek modifications to the insurance plan which may be made which benefit both the City and the members of Local 1891.” Ms. Goebelt noted “change” could also denote better coverage, and pursuant to the Union’s proposed language, this would have to be negotiated as well. Mr. Kinser pointed out the Union could indicate its agreement to the changes by letter. As the language submitted was handwritten, Chief Bingham would have it typed for further discussion at the next meeting. 2 Meeting Minutes IAFF Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida August 20, 2008 Chief Bingham recommended clarification be provided for any cases cited in Article 12 which referenced statutes, as the statute numbers could change. Article 17, Section 7. Chief Bingham distributed an IBB worksheet that was prepared at the beginning of the process, but held back in order to deal with more significant issues. The IBB represented the policy practiced for employees placed on light duty assignment. Currently, an employee on light duty would be scheduled to work a 48- hour work week for several weeks prior to being placed on a 40-hour week. The employee would be required to use eight hours of sick or vacation time in order to compensate for the 48-hour week for which he or she was paid. It was suggested in the IBB that light duty personnel be placed on the 40-hour schedule as soon as practical, and this schedule would remain in effect until the employee was removed from light duty. Payroll adjustments would be made to increase the employee’s hourly wages to ensure he or she would receive the same gross salary received while working on a shift schedule. This policy had been in practice, but had never been codified in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Chief Bingham articulated the language could be incorporated in the agreement, or the practice could be continued as an administrative tool and kept out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Another option would be to include the policy in the Administrative Standard Operating Guidelines which would be as binding as language in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Mr. Carter pointed out it was important the changeover be accomplished as quickly as possible so that an employee would no longer be charged with sick leave in order to compensate for the additional eight hours. It was pointed out adjustments to payroll during the same period would be difficult without documentation evidencing a promotion, reassignment or other significant change. It was agreed to add the Standard Operating Guideline language to the article in the agreement. Addendum A: Post Accident and Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy. Chief Bingham noted minor changes were made pertaining to addresses. Mr. Kinser noted the Union would review the addresses. Discussion ensued with regard to an article which existed in all three police contracts, and was provided by Chief Bingham for consideration. In the police contracts, the article was entitled “Article 51, Collateral Documents.” Chief Bingham explained prior to Ms. Goebelt’s employment with the City, there were issues with Human Resources wherein significant changes were made in the Personnel Policy Manual (PPM) and Administrative Policy Manual (APM). The departments relying on these documents were not notified of the changes and had no input in the process. There were issues relating to personnel management within the administrative policies of the City, and there was an effort on the part of Human Resources to remove collateral documents and place them into the PPM. This created problems as some of the collateral documents which would have been referred to in the APM were either removed or placed in the PPM. As the PPM was not a document used by individuals in the collective bargaining units, the members could have made claims that the policies did not exist. 3 Meeting Minutes IAFF Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida August 20, 2008 Chief Bingham set forth the premise of Article 51. A Collective Bargaining Agreement would never resolve every issue all the time, and there would always be issues that were not addressed. These issues could be addressed in other City policy documents which provided guidance on how to deal with a particular issue. Mr. Kinser expressed his concern regarding an article that could arbitrarily alter working conditions without the Union’s participation in the decision-making process. Chief Bingham noted the article would require the approval of the labor/management team. If the bargaining unit members were to be involved in a situation regarding a personnel issue that was not addressed in the Fire Rescue Rules and Regulations, but was addressed in another City document to which Fire did not normally subscribe, for example, the PPM, the applicable provisions could be used to resolve the situation. Ms. Goebelt pointed out an APM article could be amended at any time, while a PPM article required Commission approval and as such, could not arbitrarily be changed. Ms. Goebelt noted the PPM would be updated, and she would provide copies to all department heads and unions for review. Chief Bingham noted Fire Rescue rarely depended upon another City document, as most of Fire’s policies were incorporated either in the Collective Bargaining Agreement or in the Standard Operating Guidelines. The City caucused at 9:40 a.m. and returned at 9:47 a.m. Chief Bingham noted in the event the article were to be incorporated into the contract, it would not be entitled Article 51, as this was taken from the police contract. Mr. Kinser wished to make it clear the Union’s acceptance of the proposed article did not imply the Union automatically accepted every provision of the PPM. This would require discussion between the City and the Union. Chief Bingham noted the only modification he made to the article was to provide an opportunity for the labor/management team to impact bargain. Chief Bingham would adjust the article to ensure the Union’s wishes were clear. Article 34, Prevailing Rights. Chief Bingham had previously provided an IBB on Prevailing Rights and had not heard back from the Union. Mr. Kinser advised the IBB had been rejected; however, the Union had no alternative proposals to present at this time. Article 11, Physical Exams and Immunizations. Chief Bingham noted discussions were had during a labor/management meeting regarding the cost of a full body scan. The City would use the $800 per scan figure for the proposed Article 11. The City requested time to properly research and prepare this article, and that it not be effective until October 1, 2009. The City suggested the first test be given at the five-year mark. As previously discussed, the test would not be mandatory. Mr. Kinser agreed the test should not be mandatory as radiation was involved. The City did not disagree with the concept as it related to preventative medicine, but required adequate time to determine costs and ensure a plan would be developed in terms of the number of individuals who 4 Meeting Minutes IAFF Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida August 20, 2008 would be having the scan, and the frequency of the scan. Chief Bingham believed the City would be able to work out the details between October 1, 2008 and October 1, 2009. It was noted Palm Beach County was currently paying $600 for the scan, and this would be used as the City’s benchmark. If the amount were to increase, an adjustment would be made. The City would budget a certain amount of money each year, and if the cost of the scan increased, the City would make adjustments in the number of people receiving the test in order to remain within budget. The Union did not object to the 12-month timeframe recommended by the City. Article 14, Wages. Chief Bingham advised he had prepared preliminary standard opener language for this article to ensure all discussions were properly documented. He understood salary increases were proposed as follows: A 1.5% increase effective October 1, 2008, a 2.5% increase effective October 1, 2009, and a 2.5% increase effective October 1, 2010, with subsequent adjustments to the pay plan. Article 26, Medical Certification. Chief Bingham pointed out the title of the article would be changed to “Certification Incentive Pay,” or something similar. The Union would be provided with draft copies for review. The Union believed incentive pay should be provided, especially for Special Operations. The City had taken note that Special Operations had been in service for many years, and there had never been an adjustment in the incentive pay. The City agreed to move forward with the 75 cent per- hour increase for Special Operations, and would recommend to the Commission an adjustment to the Paramedic Incentive as well, based on the comparisons provided. Chief Bingham would propose the incentives become effective April 1, 2010. Article 38, Compensatory Time. The Union recommended a change to 144 hours, and an alternate system of dealing with compensatory time. The City would not entertain contributions to the Union Time Pool. In reviewing the compensatory hours accrued by individuals as a result of their willingness to participate in department projects, the City would increase the compensatory time, but to 120 hours (five shifts), rather than 144 hours. The City would use the same formula, with a threshold of 72 hours and a maximum of 76 hours. After accruing 96 hours, employees would be required to take time off so as not to exceed 120 hours. While the hours would change, the City felt the system had worked and as such, it would not be changed. Article 40, Supplemental Retirement Insurance. Chief Bingham noted, as Article 40 tied into Article 14, Wages, it was clear the Union’s intent was that effective October 1, 2009, the 2.5% contribution would be increased to 3%, representing a 0.5% increase to the supplemental insurance. The same would apply for October 1, 2010, in that the 3% contribution would be increased to 3.5%, representing a 0.5% increase to the supplemental insurance account. Chief Bingham advised he would be comfortable going forward with the package discussed and would contact the City Manager’s office to schedule an Executive Session 5 Meeting Minutes IAFF Negotiation Session Boynton Beach, Florida August 20, 2008 with the Commission during the first week in September. The purpose of the next meeting would be to present the proposed new contract in legislative format and to ensure everything in the summary had been captured. Chief Bingham had discussed with Mr. Carter costing out several of the items, including the wage increase during the first year and over the course of the contract. Article 17, Sick Leave. Chief Bingham noted this article would not be entertained, as the City believed the existing incentives were adequate. He did encourage the Union to come up with other creative, less costly measures of rewarding employees for not calling in sick. The Union caucused at 10:09 a.m. and returned at 10:20 a.m. Mr. Kinser pointed out the Union had time to digest the proposals and were understanding of the situation. With regard to Article 26, Certification Incentive Pay, the Union had no objection to the proposed incentive pay becoming effective April 1, 2010. With regard to Article 38, Compensatory Time, while the Union proposed an alternate plan, they had no objection to the City's plan. The next session was scheduled for August 27, 2008, at 8:30 a.m., tentatively in the City Manager's office. Mr. Kinser indicated the Union would require 30 days to post the new contract. The Union would call an emergency session of the membership on August 29, 2008 to ratify the contract, and Chief Bingham would meet with the Commission on September 18, 2008. Thereafter, the earliest date the Commission could approve the contract would be October 7, 2008. There was no further discussion and the meeting was closed at 10:27 a.m. ( . J, .7":~' ('1 ' " l. (.. . -.-' I.i '-~ "'<"-.(: _.-~~' / Stephanie D. Kahn Recording Secretary 082008 -..... 6