Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/06/1980CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 6, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting on Wednesday, February 6, 1980 at 7:30 pm in the Assessor's Office with the Police Officers Association, at City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Kenneth Jarvis, Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Peter Lavallee, Steve Burke, Kevin Hayes, Douglas Bouvier Mr. Farrar looked at wording on Article 12 section 2 proposed by Mr. Reinholz and agreed to it. On Article 9, Mr. Reinholz proposed to add the word "scheduled" before the word "overtime" twice in section 10, twice in section 11, and three times in section 12. The union here is referring to scheduled overtime, not continuation of a shift because a specific job has not been completed. Mr. Farrar asked what would happen if the first name on the list for overtime was scheduled to work the shift after the overtime period. Mr. Reinholz said the same language could be put in this section regarding that as was in the section on off-duty work. He said that if the situation arose that someone would wind up working 10 hours straight, an accomodation could be made, depending on the situation. Working two shifts on a stake-out might not be a bad situation, and it happens now, he said. The definition of scheduled overtime was discussed. Mr. Reinholz felt it was when someone did not report to work his shift and someone else was needed. The Chief might know about it 10 hours in advance, or only 10 minutes before. Mr. Burgess asked what happened if no one wanted to work the overtime and was told by Mr. Reinholz thatwould be considered an emergency and the Chief could tell a man he had to work it. Mr. Reinholz assumed the Chief would go to the first name on the list. The practice now is sometimes, when an extra shift has to be worked, one man stays on an extra 4 hours and another comes on 4 hours early. Mr. Reinholz said the Chief could distribute overtime in that manner if he wanted to. If the first name on the list cannot be contacted to come in to work, his name would remain first on the list. Mr. Jarvis asked about the situation where the man 8th on the list is better suited for a particular sensitive job than the man first on the list. Mr. Reinholz had no problem with that, if the job were sensitive. He pointed out, however, that all patrolmen had been trained and hired to do all portions of their jobs. Mr. Farrar said management would call the first name on the list to work the overtime, but they could also determine the length of time that man worked. Mr. Reinholz said that was correct, but it would be suspect if the first man worked 1 hour and the next man 7 hours. Mr. Farrar asked about management needing a man for a few hours only. He did not want to get into the situation where, if a man were called in, he would have to be paid for 4 hours work, regardless of how long he worked, but if he stayed over his shift, he would only be paid for the time he stayed over. Mr. Reinholz said the union would want 4 hours pay in both cases. If the overtime duty is different from the shift duty, they want 4 hours pay. Mr. Farrar felt that, if the Chief could not hold a person over for an hour, that was unreasonable and Mr. Reinholz agreed. He went on to say that the union understood scheduled overtime to mean an open shift or call-back overtime. Mr. Reinholz wrote a section 14 in that article to define scheduled overtime, "Scheduled overtime shall mean overtime that occurs due to the lack of manpower for a shift assignment." In section 13, the words "Overtime work" were replaced with "Bargaining unit work". This is work the bargaining unit normally does, and prevents management from giving it to part-timers. Mr. Reinholz agreed. Section 14 covers vacations, sick leave, etc. Mr. Reinholz said. Mr. Reinholz asked about section 9 and Mr. Farrar said he would like the language to be open on the choice of the three options. This year, for example, the city might want the $30 option but next year, if more detectives were hired, they might want to have overtime instead. If another detective were hired, Mr. Farrar said, then the two who work now would be on stand-by status only every other week, and they would not receive the extra $30 the weeks they were not on stand- by. Mr. Reinholz said the detectives' position was that, as long as they serve in the capacity that they are in now, they are on stand-by whether they are on it 50% of the time or 14% of the time, so they always receive the $30. If another detective were added, they would still receive the $30. He said, however, that at the next bargaining session, this item could be discussed. Mr. Flaherty suggested adding the following wording, "In lieu of overtime, they shall be paid $30 per week." The following was agreed to, "For July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981, detectives will receive $30 per week in lieu of overtime and stand-by duty for work as detectives." The figure of $30 assumes that the beepers discussed in article 22 section 10 are purchased. Mr. Reinhloz asked about article 15 and was told the city did not have a response yet, but there did not seem to be a problem with the concept of the city handling off-duty work and billing it. Article 19 was discussed. There were no changes to sections 5,7,8,9,13, or 14, and only grammatical changes to sections 6 and 12. Mr. Farrar felt section 10 was reasonable. After some discussion, the word "NOT" was left in section 11, but the underlined phrase was deleted. Sections 5-14 were OK, Mr. Farrar. The change in section 1 is the same as in section 11 and is OK. In Step 1, Mr. Reinholz said discharge action is subject to arbitration by State law and Mr. Szymanski said it was also in the Charter. Mr. Farrar wanted to be sure the timing laid out in this article was the same as the timing in the personnel rules. Step 3 was discussed. Mr. Farrar felt it was the employee who should request an executive session. Mr. Reinholz said the union could also request it because the employee might decide not to pursue a grievance but the union might want to pursue it. It was pointed out that, as worded here, it was the employee who could request it. After further discussion, it was agreed to delete the word "UNION" on page 29 and add the following after the word "discretion" on page 30 "In the absence of an employee, the union will determine whether it wishes to request an executive session." Mr. Reinhloz said the union could ask for an executive session on a disciplinary or discharge matter. In Step 2 the words "and/or legal counsel" should be added to the end of the sentence beginning, "Employees are entitled to be represented at all such hearings..." Mr. Farrar assumed it would be the employee's decision as to who represented him, and Mr. Reinholz added that the union had the right to be present also. Mr. Farrar asked what recourse the city had if the union did not abide by the contract. Mr. Reinholz said they had the right of no action, such as not paying salaries, which would give rise to a grievance, but management cannot file for arbitration. Mr. Farrar wanted to think about section 3C, saying that the courts could decide arbitrability also. There was no problem with section 4, which contains grammatical changes. Article 20 was taken up. Mr. Farrar said the City Attorney had suggested some alternate language in section 1. The suggestion is to add the following to the end of that section,", and shall be the exclusive procedure for determining any grievance or controversy involving the layoff, suspension, or tenure of any bargaining unit employee. All members of the bargaining unit forfeit any rights they may have had resulting from Chapter 49 of Title 24 of Vermont Statutes Annotated. Any members of the bargaining unit may be laid off for reasons of economic necessity." Mr. Reinholz responded that the union had proposed binding arbitration but that they would not be in a position to say that they would not take advantage of any state law or legal options. He felt discipline and discharge were open to arbitration and to legal avenues. Mr. Burgess said he wanted the protection of the courts for both parties and he mentioned dropping the entire section. Mr. Reinholz felt that as an employer the city should want explicit wording in the contract. He wanted both parties to have recourse to the courts. Mr. Farrar said he would discuss this item further with the Attorney. In article 22, there are no changes to sections 1,3,4,5,7, and 9. Mr. Farrar had no problem with sections 1,3, or 4. Mr. Reinholz noted that in section 5 the union had offered to balance the safety committee 2 and 2. In section 2, it was agreed to remove the word "PAST" before "General Orders" and insert the words "in effect" after it. It was also decided to add "President" after the word "Union", before "upon request". The words "acquisition of the" were removed from section 7. Mr. Farrar said section 10 would be all right if the city could verify the cost figures for the beepers plus an answering service. Mr. Burke suggested that at a later date this service could be shared with the Fire Department, for a savings of some money. Mr. Farrar felt that, in section 11, job descriptions could be reviewed every 3 years, not annually and Mr. Reinholz agreed. It will be done this year, Mr. Farrar assumed. Section 12 was OK. Mr. Farrar said it would be all right to appoint the committee discussed in section 13, although it was pointed out that it might take some time to have a report ready. Regarding credit union deductions, Mr. Reinholz said that could be done when the computer problems are straightened out. Section 8 had a grammatical correction. On article 21, the city had made a proposal at a previous meeting. The city increased the amount of life insurance, but Mr. Reinholz noted thatincrease would not result in a substantial insurance increase for the employees. Regarding personal property, Mr. Reinholz noted that the city's proposal was more restrictive than the union's. Mr. Farrar wanted that provision to be reasonable and fair. He did not want the city to be responsible if someone wore a very expensive watch on duty and broke it. The costs of watches, suits and bifocals were discussed, to see what might be reasonable. Mr. Flaherty suggested $100 per article and $250 per incident as limits. The word "customary" was replaced with "police" before "duties" on the city's proposal. The definition of personal property was also changed from property "normally and customarily carried" to "customarily worn or used". Mr. Reinholz did not think $250 per incident was an unreasonable limit. Mr. Reinholz reviewed the moves made by both sides on the salary issue. He said the union was not interested in a collapsed schedule in any way. Mr. Burgess asked about the merit system and was told they were still discussing it. The union wants an across-the-board pay raise on each person's salary and they feel that the percentage increase offered last year was not the percentage received, because it takes effect on anniversary dates. The city offered 7%, but no one received 7%, they feel. Mr. Farrar said that if the members looked at their total salaries for this year compared to last year, they should see a 7% increase. He said he could check on it, but everyone should have received 7%. Mr. Reinholz asked for salary information and Mr. Szymanski said he would get it to him. Mr. Reinholz said the union had proposed a 14% raise and the city an 8.9% one. The union now proposes a two year contract, and they want to know the city's position on binding arbitration. Mr. Farrar said that would apply next year if they agree to a one year economic settlement, and in the third year if they agree to a two year economic settlement. In those years, there will be a binding arbitration provision in the contract on economic issues. Mr. Reinholz said the union agreed to that. If the two parties could not agree on economic issues, they would go to binding arbitration. Mr. Reinholz said that as of July 1, 1980 the union wanted an across the board increase for each employee. Previously they asked 14% and now they propose 12% across the board increase effective on July 1, 1980 on each individual salary. He said the city was proposing between 10 1/2 to 11%, according to the January 22 minutes, by a 8.9% increase in the base. If the union receives this, they will drop the shift differential, longevity, educational pay, they will go from 2 more holidays to 1, and drop the educational credit for pay. They will also change the vacation time to 3 weeks for 5-11 years and 12 years or more, 4 weeks. They will also drop the request for the agency fee. The other 4 economic issues are small, he said. The request for credits in article 22, section 6 was for 6 per semester and that will be dropped to 3 per year and a definitive description of the courses permitted can be written. The union wants to provide incentive for people to continue to learn about law enforcement. Mr. Farrar said the city's position was that its total economic package was just and reasonable and that they had heard no argument from the union to the contrary. It was also mentioned that the city's ability to tax was limited, and that the police might have to go to the voters for the increase they were requesting. Mr. Reinholz said inflation was 13.3% and the city's offer was 10 1/2 to 11%, but Mr. Farrar pointed out that many people in the area would not receive as much. Mr. Reinholz said the goal of the city was to not have people leave for better pay elsewhere. Mr. Burgess responded that it was not the intention to pay higher than anyone else, but to be competitive, and he felt the facts said the city was competitive. Mr. Flaherty wanted the union to consider the ability of the city to pay and he noted that taxpayers were also dealing with inflation. The package the city is proposing is all they feel they can do at this time. Mr. Reinholz felt the city could move on its proposal, as the police have. They also feel they have a reasonable request and they have tried to narrow it down to the bottom line. Both sides will discuss this further. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 pm., and another meeting set for Thursday, January 14 at 7:30 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.