Minutes 09-08-11
MINUTES OF THE BLUE COLLAR MEETING BETWEEN
THE SEIU FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICES UNION,
AND THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
HELD AT CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM B, AT 10:00 A.M.
ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2011, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PRESENT:
For the City of Boynton Beach For SEIU
Julie Oldbury, Human Resources Director Joseph Brenner, Deputy Director, SEIU
Tim Howard, Assistant Finance Director Mike Osborn, SEIU, PSU
Michael Low, Deputy Director of Utilities Don Roberts, SEIU, PSU
Julie Oldbury
, Human Resources Director, opened the bargaining session at 10:05
a.m. and explained this was the first meeting to address the Collective Bargaining
Agreement that would expire on September 30, 2011.
The Union had presented proposals to Ms. Oldbury in advance of the meeting and there
was agreement the parties would go through the articles to address questions. The City
would then come to the next meeting with responses or counter proposals.
Article 12 Employee Appeals - Grievances. The Union sought to move directly to an
arbitrator and include it for any type of discipline greater than a written reprimand.
Discussion followed if the current process was not working.
Mike Osborn
, Union Steward, explained this proposal was not the full article. Many
supervisors were issuing one-day suspensions because they know they cannot go to
arbitration. The workers cannot fight these suspensions which start to pile up in the
employee’s file.
Ms. Oldbury explained there was an Administrative Review procedure and it would
come before the Human Resource Director before it would go to the next step. Mr.
Osborn explained it would follow through on that process as an extra step.
Joseph Brenner
, Deputy Director, SEIU, clarified the proposal outlined the process.
The steps fall under the Disciplinary Article not the Grievance Procedure Article. The
language would allow them to use the Grievance procedures for anything greater than a
written reprimand and the Human Resource Director has the final say. Steps 13.5 and
higher would remain. The original language indicated any suspension of one day or less
goes to Human Resources. Presently, workers can grieve a one-day suspension and it
1
Meeting Minutes
SEIU Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2011
goes to an administrative review and anything over a one-day suspension has to go to
Human Resources as well. Ms. Oldbury explained in the two months she has been with
the City she has seen one suspension and the review was held. She wanted the Union
to know that she reviews the suspension and she considers them to be quite serious. If
the violation does not rise to that level, it would not be upheld. It was important she
make a fair determination to ensure the rights of employees and those components are
preserved. Her concern with just moving into the Grievance process was ensuring the
Union was not pushing incidents to arbitration if they could be dealt with by the City.
It was suggested a modification to Article 12 or 13 be made. The Union’s past
experience was there was no process. Discussion followed about the Progressive
Discipline process. Mr. Low inquired if there were employees who have received
repeated one-day suspensions rather than progressing them through the Progressive
Discipline process and if the City was using the suspensions to avoid going to
arbitration. Mr. Osborn responded suspensions should be for serious offenses with the
next step being termination. Ms. Oldbury acknowledged the Union’s concerns and
agreed to come back with alternate language.
Article 13 Grievance Procedures. The Union’s proposal removed language that
prevented Performance Evaluations from being grieved. Mr. Osborn explained in the
past, supervisors rated employees on likes and dislikes as opposed to performance.
The matter had been discussed in labor management, but still was not resolved. He
recalled one instance when the Union had a grievance that went to arbitration. The City
won the grievance but only because the arbitrator indicated the Union should have filed
separately as opposed to a class action suit. Mr. Osborn relayed his personal
experience when he felt penalized because of a personality issue as opposed to a job
performance issue on his evaluation.
Ms. Oldbury expressed concern, from an administrative standpoint, of having a long line
of complaints that do not have true merit. She explained if an employee shows up to
work every day and does their job, they meet the expectations on their evaluations. She
suggested fixing the process with evaluations, but the other component is the volume of
paperwork. She suggested there might be some type of balance and more objective
criteria when an employee goes above and beyond.
Discussion followed whether the problems were worsened because of the evaluations
being directly linked to increases. Mr. Osborn explained the problems arose ever since
the pay for performance plan was implemented. Previously, the City used the pass/fail
system and the Union tried to go back to that system. He noted some departments
understood the process better than others.
Article 13 Grievance and Arbitration Procedures. The Union proposed the parties divide
the arbitration fee equally. The Union felt sometimes the employee or Union would
bring an issue to arbitration, in part, because either party has the potential to pay the
entire cost. Often, going to arbitration was not needed. The proposal was a check on
2
Meeting Minutes
SEIU Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2011
both parties. If the Union had an issue going through the grievance procedure and the
next step was arbitration, they would consider what an arbitrator would review and seek
remedy if the merits of the issue were not strong. The Union would not seek to take
items to arbitration that did not need to go to arbitration. Ms. Oldbury agreed to take
time and more closely review the matter.
Article 18 Wages. Ms. Oldbury commented the City was in a rough financial situation,
and she advised she was very sure wages or bonuses would not be implemented at this
time. The financial outlook was dismal and next year was not looking any more
favorable. She suggested if they can accomplish the process issues, it could
complement the issue when it is available. It was noted the Union was obligated to ask
for the bonus on behalf of the members and both parties acknowledged the amount was
reasonable, but would likely not occur. The requested amount was $500 once per year.
Article 20 – Standby and Call Back Pay. Mr. Osborn explained the workers involved in
Standby and Call Back Pay were determined by the response time as opposed to
residency. Currently, an employee has to work a minimum of four hours in order to be
placed on Standby for the day. This was discussed last year with the White Collar
Union and the Blue Collar Union was seeking to conform this article to theirs. If an
employee used a vacation day to take care of personal matters, but was able to
respond, they should be able to. Mr. Osborn relayed one of his experiences with this.
With water treatment plants, there are two employees on call for the east plant and two
for the west plant. They are on for two weeks and off for two weeks and it was difficult
to schedule outside activities with the schedule. The proposal would not pertain to
employees who used sick time.
Last year was the first year the language was in the contract. It was proposed because
the bulk of Standby was used in the Utilities Department and there is an article detailing
how the Standby and Call Back is implemented. Ms. Oldbury expressed concern an
employee may take four hours off and it would not connect to the shift and be eligible for
standby pay. Discussion followed this was a compromise to the City’s original proposal
which specified if an employee was off at all, they were ineligible. Prior to that, the
practice was if an employee was on vacation they could still be on call, and if one called
in sick, they were not eligible. There was nothing in writing. Ms. Oldbury agreed to
review the process further, and she would try to add language to address the sick time
and other potential issues.
Section 20.1.2. pertained to Automatic Vehicle Locators (AVL). There was a cost
associated with them which would continue to grow. Mr. Osborn explained years ago
there was a system that worked fine. When the Union accepted the AVL procedure, it
was accepted with the understanding it would be used on every City vehicle. Only the
Blue Collar workers were using it. The AVL cannot be used as a time clock and it was
perceived as a waste of money, which could be discontinued. Previously, dispatchers
kept a log of when the employee was called, when they responded, and when the
employee went home. This information was used for the time records and the process
3
Meeting Minutes
SEIU Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2011
was also used at the lift stations and water treatment plants Discontinuing the AVL
would save the City thousands of dollars over time and would place more responsibility
on the employee The Water Treatment Plant has a control room operator on shift 24
hours a day. If there is an emergency, the operator calls the on call employees
responsible for that area and logs the time called. The employee would call back to
indicate they are responding and that time would be logged. That was when the clock
would start. When done with the job, they would go home and call to go out of service,
which was logged. The employee also was responsible for maintaining the log book
located in the vehicle which they would also use to log these times. The two records
would match up. The only thing the AVL can be used for was a time clock. The City
tried to use it for other things, but was legally barred from doing so. It cost $10K a year
for the system.
Mr. Osborn pointed out that was also if the City did not receive new vehicles. The
AVL’s were not being removed from old vehicles before they are traded in. Instead, they
are installing new AVL’s in the new vehicles. There is a cost to monitor them. If there
were any other issues after installation, it was extra. Additionally, six or seven callback
employees were cut. Mr. Osborn felt it was a waste of money on the City’s part to pay
$17k a year for 7 individuals.
Section 20. 2.1. Call Back Pay. Mr. Osborn explained this language reflected the
Personnel Policy Manual to make it less confusing for employees called back and for
Finance and payroll personnel. Ms. Oldbury would have to cost out the item.
Additionally, the PPM has additional language.
Article 41 Compassionate Leave. The Union proposed to add step parents and step
children to the article. Mr. Low requested confirmation that the definition of step parent
was by marriage and it was noted some employees were raised by other individuals
such as grandparents. Brief dialogue followed that the employee was expected to bring
back confirmation of the death.
Article 38 Safety and Health. The Union proposed to delete language in Section 38.2.
which pertained to employees unable to be fitted properly for shoes supplied by the
City’s shoe vendor. Previously, employees required to wear safety shoes received an
allowance. The new policy required employees to use the vendor unless the vendor
could not provide a proper fit. Mr. Osborn explained the vendor feels they fitted
everyone properly; however, he was wearing safety shoes that were a size too big
because his feet would not fit inside the steel toe on a normal sized boot. There were
numerous complaints throughout the Blue and White Collar employees. It was noted
many employees went up an entire size. There were no half sizes and the boots were
not available in wide sizes.
Discussion followed the matter was handled through Risk Management. It was not
known if the vendor has a boot model that has widths. Risk Management and the
Safety Committee deemed which boots would be used and only gave a choice of one
4
Meeting Minutes
SEIU Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida September 8, 2011
model. The issue may be more about the vendor and what they allow. It was
suggested they be required to offer models with half sizes and widths, or a choice. It
was also suggested the issue may be with the vendor. Again, it was pointed out a boot
vendor had been available in the past, prior to implementing the current vendor, and
employees had a choice of six or seven styles, but the City later opted to issue the
allowance for the shoes because it was more convenient.
Article 39, Tool Replacement. Mr. Low explained there were instances when
employees were deemed negligible for missing tools and there were a number of
appeals which have gone before the Incident Review Board. It was noted if someone
loses a radio, it is expensive.
Mr. Osborn explained if an employee loses equipment, the employee is responsible for
it. If it is stolen from an assigned vehicle, a police report is filed and there should not be
a question whether the employee was negligent. He recalled one instance when a tool
was stolen from the back of a locked City vehicle, in a locked City compound, over the
weekend. The employee should not have to go through the process and appeal the
decision. Another instance was when Mr. Roberts was working behind the animal
control building. Two weed eaters were stolen by someone who parked across the
railroad tracks while Mr. Roberts and his crew were working in the front. Opportunities
to recover the tools are not always available. He pointed out individuals are very
brazen, especially in this economic climate. These instances are going to happen. The
City at one point issued locks and chains for the crew to mount weed eaters on the
trucks, but they do not do that any more. He pointed out someone walking away from
the truck to do their job does not make them negligible, and while there are some
policies governing the issue, when tools are stolen from the truck, it is not the
individual’s fault.
Mr. Low also pointed out part of the issue is how the matter is handled. Mr. Osborn
commented the Incident Review Board usually determines negligence in these
instances and feels the employee can appeal it if they do not agree with it. Mr. Osborn
noted a supervisor can only support an employee during an appeal process.
Article 40 Uniforms. Five years ago, employees were permitted to wear their own hats,
jackets and sweatshirts. At that time, employees received two sweatshirts and then last
year, the City went to one sweatshirt. As a money saving issue, the Union was
proposing to get their own. Hats take time to order, and the current hats cannot be
washed. Ms. Oldbury inquired if the clothing was an attempt to brand. Mr. Roberts
explained they were only seeking to supply their own plain colored jacket, sweatshirt
and hat. Discussion followed it was intended for uniformity and to identify City
employees to the public. Mr. Osborn stated the jacket was more like a windbreaker and
employees wear something under it, but if it is too heavy, they can not fit the jacket over
it. Ms. Oldbury pointed out sometimes there are safety issues associated with clothing.
She wanted to ascertain if there were safety concerns. Mr. Osborn also pointed out the
City used to provide a thick sweatshirt and now provides a paper-thin sweatshirt.
5
Meeting Minutes
SEIU Blue Collar Bargaining Session
Boynton Beach, Florida
September 8, 2011
Article 48. Probationary Period. Mr. Osborn explained when an employee is promoted,
they go back on probation. He commented six months was a long time and employers
should know within three months if an employee can handle the job as they are aware
of the employee's work ethics from their previous position. This provision does not
apply to new hires, which requires almost 12 months of probation. There is limited
opportunity for raises and promotions are one way to receive a raise, but the provision
usually stops employees from taking the promotion.
Article 52. Postinq of Aqreement. The Union proposed each member receive a hard
copy of this agreement upon request as well as being posted on the City's website.
Dialogue ensued doing so could cost a lot of money and the funds were not in Ms.
Oldbury's budget. She proposed to modify language to specify the provision would
apply to those with no computer access. Additionally, it was suggested instructions on
how to access the agreement and where it was posted be given to employees. It was
intended to be accessed in a user-friendly way. Mr. Low commented most Utility
workers could access it through the break room where they have a computer and
printer. Ms. Oldbury had no objections to printing the contract one time per agreement
on request, but did not want to print unreasonable copies.
Article 54. Duration. Mr. Brenner commented the Union requested a two-year contract,
but there has been some push to go year-to-year. Additionally, some language was
removed that was redundant. He commented if the legislature changed a law, they
would have to address it.
Ms. Oldbury explained they would need to speak about some of the monetary articles
that were suspended to 2011, that will need to be suspended further. That issue could
be a driving force behind the one year or two year contract. The Union could have
reopener clauses. She stated she wanted to cost out items to see how much is
monetary and meet with the City Manager. She was aware they would be addressing
the pension requirements and would return with cleaned up language.
Ms. Oldbury expressed she wanted to establish good working relationships. The Union
presented reasonable issues and explanations bearing consideration. The next meeting
will be held on September 21 st from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the administration building at the
East Water Treatment Plant. There was agreement the City would forward its proposals
to the Union in advance of the meeting.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was closed at 11 :22 a.m.
L~!u~UL C1Q)J-tf
Catherine Cherry d
Recording Secretary
090811
6