Loading...
Minutes 05-31-11 MINUTES OF CONTRACT NEGOTIATION SESSION BETWEEN IAFF LOCAL 1891 AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2011 AT 1:00 P.M. IN FIRE STATION #5, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA For the City: For the Union: Mr. Kurt Bressner, City ManagerDean Kinser, President Sharyn Goebelt, Director, HR Robert Kruse, Vice President Larry Lederhandler, Treasurer Also present: Thomas Murphy, Jr., Secretary Adam Turey, Business Agent Ray Carter, Interim Fire Chief The meeting was opened at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Bressner expressed his appreciation to all for attending the session. Mr. Bressner advised he sent a letter to the union requesting consideration be given to reopening two articles of the contract, Article 14, Wages and Article 12, Group Insurance. The reason for the request on the Wage Article was that the preliminary budget the department had put together, and in keeping with the request that costs be reduced, had an impact on reduction in service, as well as reduction in staff. It could potentially include the reduction of incumbent staff, though the goal was to was accomplish it with unfilled positions. Under the terms of the labor contract, Mr. Bressner advised that it was his obligation to inform the union of service cutbacks. Specifically, the request was that the wages be held status quo for another one year period, beginning October 1, 2011. The second Article concerned medical insurance. As part of the budget submittal, Ms. Goebelt had advised that our current carrier, Cigna, had submitted an anticipated 36% increase in the premium costs. With subsequent discussions, that figure was reduced to 23%, but through the consultant, the City was able to bring the increase down to 0%. The terms of the labor contract required that any changes to the health insurance program be discussed with the members of the local union. The City put together cost figures based on the 0% premium, but there would be an additional out of pocket cost to the employees and their dependents if the change were approved. It was hoped the local union would agree rather than the City going out to bid and having to possibly transition again. Mr. Bressner also advised he submitted a draft MOU that Attorney Cherof had completed and will distribute. Mr. Kinserwanted confirmation from Ms. Goebelt that there were no changes to the insurance. She advised it had to be approved by Cigna. She stated she had an informal approval but the representative working with the City had resigned, but there was a guarantee it would be honored. An RFP was issued for dental because Met Life wanted the City’s business back. There was no increase anticipated for vision or life. Mr. Meeting Minutes IAFF Contract Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 31, 2011 Bressner commented the language in the MOU may have to be modified in the event the dental cost increased, as it addressed health insurance only. Mr. Bressner inquired of Mr. Kinser whether under the terms of the labor contract, would the provision for Article 12 cover all group insurance or did it break it down. Mr. Kinser advised the MOU was changing section language and Articles in the contract. The contract language under Article 12 was not intended to negotiate language of the Article. It was to annually review all policies and modifications to insurance plans that could be made which benefit both the City and the Union. The intent of the language was there to address any issues with dental insurance that could arise and put into place the opportunity for modifications. The language was not there to the extent that it is a carte blanche opener to address the provisions that were negotiated at the original collective bargaining agreement. What was addressed with the Cigna impact changes, there would be an impact to the employees because it would cost more money in co- pays and deductibles. That would be a modification for both the City and the Union and there is no problem with that particular plan. Mr. Bressner inquired if it would be acceptable to draft a sentence that stated all policies shall be reviewed annually and modifications to the insurance plan should be made that benefit both the City and the Union. The City would provide a minimum of 30 days’ notice of its intent to exercise its right to reopen the section for negotiation. Mr. Kinser advised what Article 12 addressed encompasses Section 8, Medical Insurance, Life Insurance, and Dental Insurance. The language addresses all policies. He did not feel the insurance issue would have to be addressed with the Union members. Mr. Kinser advised the next section addressed the Collective Bargaining Agreement. He reviewed the language of the MOU with the parties present. He advised he had to address the issue of the COLA and merit raises. Currently, the contract is in succession as year one, year two and year three. If year two were to be frozen and the current language is maintained, people would move from where they are now to the 2013 level, which was not the intent of that particular issue. The intent was to eliminate Section 1c of the contract and replace it so that the MOU would be addressed for year two in the third year of the contract. Mr. Bressner inquired if the economic situation were such that in the third year of the contract the City had to ask for a reopener on wages, would the Union be receptive and Mr. Kinser advised there was not a provision for a re-opener in the contract. Mr. Bressner stated the way the contract now reads, in each year of the contract, if the circumstances warranted, the City could ask for a reopener. He felt the door should not be closed on the possibility that a year from now, the Union may have to agree to a reopener to freeze the salaries for another year. Mr. Kinser replied that would mean six years of wage freeze. 2 Meeting Minutes IAFF Contract Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 31, 2011 Mr. Bressner inquired if the City agreed to the language and the economy is such that the bargaining unit would be able to put into effect pay increases for fiscal year 2012, which schedule would go into effect? Mr. Kinser replied Section 1B of the MOU, which is the City’s Section 2. In essence, what the Union is offering was elimination of one year of wages. Mr. Bressner advised he felt the language would be acceptable but reiterated if it was absolutely necessary, the City may ask for a reopener again. Chief Carter confirmed the discussion and his understanding was that the City’s Section 2 was the same as what the Union was proposing but inquired of Mr. Kinser if the reopener language was acceptable? Mr. Kinser again stated six years of the contract had already been written off. The Union members left the room for discussion at 1:23 p.m. The Union members returned at 1:27 p.m. Mr. Kinser advised the members discussed the reopener and there was an issue with it. The reason everyone was at this point was that the Union renegotiated last year with the Commission. Decisions were made in that last year of negotiations to get to this point; meaning the provisions that were put on the table were the provisions to get to the point where all could abide by the contract. If there was an opener, there would be an entirely new work force that may have different opinions and views of public sector and there may not be the same commitment of City administrative staff that had a good sense of labor management relations. He pointed out the Union was being asked to write off a provision from the contract that had been stopped numerous times. It has not been even 12 months since it was presented and voted on by the Commission. There were performance evaluations being done on people who were not getting any merit raises. From a supervisory position, it was hard to reward people without rewards. There are some that are at the 2008 level and now would be going to 2013/2014. Mr. Bressner advised the language of Article 2 subparagraph B of the contract as approved by the IAFF and the City Commission last year was operative for the upcoming fiscal year. If the MOU goes forward as it has been presented, the City accepted the notion of the reopener for Fiscal Year 2011/12. The Commission and the agreement did not contemplate a second bite. There was a one year window. Mr. Kinser advised in the last negotiations, originally there was no opener in the second year. The Union came to the City and waived that and offered to erase everything from the first three years and go with wages from 08/09. Mr. Bressner advised he would make every effort to present the MOU to the City Commission. He inquired if Mr. Kinser would want to go through with ratification or wait until after he speaks to the City Commission, as usually the MOU is ratified before with a lock on the terms. Because of the unusual circumstances with he and Ms. Goebelt leaving the City, he indicated he did not have the confidence of the end result. It had 3 Meeting Minutes IAFF Contract Negotiations Boynton Beach, FL May 31,2011 been traditional that the Union would go first on ratifications, but if the Commission turns it down, that would not be a good situation. Chief Carter inquired of Mr. Kinser if there were some event in the third year of the contract that might occur that would allow revisiting the issue. For example, if there were a 5% decrease in property values. What would it take to get the Union to agree to it and could it be written into the MOU? Mr. Bressner indicated the City was at a 4.3% reduction presently. He agreed with Chief Carter to at least provide some kind of defining event. Chief Carter indicated the contract is clear and he did not think it would be fair to ask for something open-ended, but if property values do go down again, by whatever amount is appropriate, would it be acceptable to have the language in the contract to cause the reopener? Mr. Lederhandler advised the Commission chose not to raise the millage last year and if there was an opener, it leaves that window for the Commission not to raise the millage again. Mr. Bressner advised it was a policy issue for the Commission and is totally within their discretion as to whether they choose to raise the millage or not. Mr. Kruse inquired of Mr. Bressner if the MOU was acceptable. Mr. Bressner indicated hoped the union would agree to some type of reopener language. He reiterated he would advise the Commission in transmitting this or a modification that it was clear the language of the current contract was for this year only. He felt Chief Carter's idea was worth considering and felt it was an external objective standard that was not based on opinion, but based on a direct linkage between the taxable value and the ability of the City to levy property taxes. Mr. Kinser advised they will entertain the idea and reiterated if the MOU language was acceptable, he would speak to the other members of the Union to possibly get different ideas. It was the consensus to reconvene for rediscussion on Thursday, June 1 sl at 10:30 a.m. Mr. Bressner thanked the members for their cooperation and their willingness to discuss the matters. The meeting was closed at 1:47 p.m. e ? rJ'). I ~f.'{t l{{{Jj-4--t~ Ellie Caruso Recording Secretary 4