Loading...
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