Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/10/1980CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 10, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting with the Police Union on Thursday, January 10, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. in the Assessor's Office, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Kenneth Jarvis, Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Thomas Fraga, Lance Reinholz, Kevin Hayes, Ron Demers, Peter Lavallee, S. Burke Mr. Farrar said that the union had asked for longevity, change in the base plan, and shift differentials. He asked whether it would be reasonable to work with the existing pay structure with the flexibility to make modifications in the base level or the amount of longevity or merit money. Mr. Reinholz said his group wanted to know that, given the course of a year, if they were to be kept on the force, they would receive a certain dollar increase at the end of the year. The major objection to the merit part of the plan is that no one knows how to get the largest raise and they do not know why or why not they receive it or do not receive it. He said some members of the force were afraid to take contrary views to management for fear that it would affect the size of their paychecks. The men would like to know what standards they are being measured against ahead of time so they can work toward those goals. They feel the system is arbitrary and not fair. They do not want to eliminate merit but they feel that a person not doing a good job can be fired or disciplined or kept at the same pay. They feel that if a person does a good job, that should mean extra money. Mr. Farrar said he had studied evaluations done in the city last year, and the police department was rated as a whole above the mean of all city employees. Mr. Reinholz replied that it was individuals, not the entire department the men were concerned about. He knew of 10 grievances he was sure would be settled in favor of the policemen, but they had never been filed for fear of pay loss. Mr. Hayes suggested doing away with a money reward for merit and putting that money into the regular pay schedule. He also wanted to revamp the evaluation so the men knew ahead of time what they would be rated on. Mr. Jarvis arrived at this point in the meeting. Mr. Flaherty asked if the police wanted to separate the evaluation from the merit step increases and was told that was correct. Mr. Farrar asked that the Council be given the list of grievances so they could look them over. Mr. Reinholz said they wanted to separate the evaluations from money. Mr. Farrar was willing to look into that. The pay structure could be collapsed around the middle and adjusted for that point. Mr. Reinholz said they would be happy to work on a revision to see if a merit system could work. Shift differentials were now discussed. The men want more money for working second and third shifts. Mr. Farrar pointed out that if the schedule was rotated uniformly everyone would work the same amount of each shift, and the differential would work out to, in effect, an increase in the base pay. He said it was not the intent of the city to have certain members of the force working second or third shift almost all the time. Mr. Reinholz said they would be willing to look at their position on shift differentials after the section on scheduling was completed. Mr. Farrar felt the demand of a rotating schedule so everyone worked good and bad shifts equally and the demand of having the schedule flexible so courses can be taken were not totally compatible goals. Mr. Farrar asked how the union felt about collapsing the pay schedule around the midpoint and using that number in the basic format. Mr. Reinholz said they were interested and would look at a proposal, but were not sure about collapsing around the midpoint, since that would mean that some men would not do well. Mr. Farrar felt the decision as to whether to collapse the schedule or leave it as it is could be left up to the men, since it does not make a difference to the city. He agreed that if merit were taken out of the plan, the man rated highly today would not receive as large a raise as the man with a low rating. Mr. Reinholz suggested adding the following wording to Article VII, Section 1: "This section shall not be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures if weekly remittances are not made due to an error in bookkeeping or the lack of manpower resulting from uncontrollable circumstances." Mr. Flaherty also wanted to add the following, which was accepted by Mr. Reinholz: "The union shall indemnify, defend, and save the city harmless against any and all claims, demands, suits, or other forms of liability which shall arise out of, or by reason of, action taken by the city in reliance upon payroll dedications in accordance with authorization cards submitted by the union to the city." Mr. Reinholz said the union realized it might take a long time to get the program going, and if it took 6 months, it took 6 months. On Article 9 Section 6, Mr. Reinholz dropped the proposal and allowed the present language to stand. He wanted to retain the last sentence, however. Mr. Farrar had a problem with that sentence, feeling that it should be clarified that some notice had to be given before time was taken. He asked whether the men wanted to be able to say one week ahead of time that they wanted time off, or know two weeks ahead of time when they would be working. Messrs. Reinholz and Farrar agreed to clarify the section. On Article 9 Section 9, Mr. Reinholz proposed dropping that wording and substituting a flat rate of $30 with the adoption of Article 22, Section 10. The city wanted to look further into that. The following was proposed in Article 12, Section 2: "Seniority shall prevail with regard to holidays, overtime, and off-duty work. One half of all vacation time will be allocated on a seniority basis, the remaining one half on a first-come-first-served basis." Mr. Farrar was not sure how the city would want to handle the off- duty work, saying the city might take over management of that. Article 15, Section 1 was discussed. It was proposed that the third line be changed to read "Burlington at the rate of $10 per hour prior to 12:00 p.m. and $15 per hour after midnight." Mr. Hayes said the police were amenable to having the city take over billing and management of that work. It was also proposed to replace the language in Section 2 of that article with "The Police Chief shall be responsible for the organization and implementation of the off-duty work schedule." He can delegate this work to someone else. Mr. Reinholz proposed to add the word "All" as the first word in Section 3. Issued equipment is defined in Article 13 of the contract. Regarding Section 4 of that article, Mr. Reinholz wanted to drop the current proposal and add "Request for an officer(s) to perform off-duty work will not be refused by management as a political means or as a means of penalizing or disciplining an employee." Mr. Farrar felt there should be some reasonable limit on the amount of extra work a man could do, since if he worked 8 hours before reporting to work his shift that day, he might not do a good job. Mr. Flaherty added that there should be a statement as to why permission could be withheld. Mr. Hayes said they could work out a guideline. It was proposed that in Article 16, Section 4, the current language be dropped and replaced with: "At the employee's option, and with at least 2 weeks notice; vacation pay will be paid one week in advance of the vacation period." Mr. Szymanski noted that this was the practice now. In Article 15, Section 5, it was proposed that the current proposal be dropped and the following be added: "Each employee must take at least one week or one half, whichever is greater, of his/her alloted vacation time each year. At least 5 days of the vacation time taken must be consecutive days. An employee may accumulate and carry over a maximum of 15 days vacation time from year to year." A total of 15 days can be carried over in a one year period. The Council suggested that it would not be a good idea to have a vacationing policeman working during that period and suggested that the union think about that. Mr. Reinholz said they would. In Section 6 of that article the words "Vacation time may be taken" were proposed to be replaced with the words, "Vacation time in excess of the consecutive days taken may be taken". Mr. Farrar felt that was good. Mr. Reinholz proposed to strike the words "up to a cost of $3.25 $4.50 per employee". Mr. Farrar asked if there was any objection to choosing a mutually agreeable establishment and there was none. The city will agree to clean the uniforms once per week at an establishment which will be chosen and the bill will be sent to the city. Mr. Reinholz said he would have some language on that point for the next meeting. No dollar figure will be attached to the section. It was proposed to drop the word "adequate" from Section 6 of the same article. The membership of the safety committee was discussed and it was the Council's feeling that it should be equally weighted. It was suggested that what kind of first aid kit the fire department carried be investigated. Mr. Reinholz asked about Article 22, Section 18. If it becomes a ballot issue, the members would like to have it on the March vote. It was proposed to add "(18 days)" as clarification in Section 1 of Article 18 after the words, "ONE YEAR'S ACCUMULATED SICK LEAVE". In Section 3 of that article, Mr. Flaherty proposed to add "or at the discretion of the City Manager" after the words, "an illness after three (3) consecutive working days". Mr. Reinholz was not sure that was necessary. Mr. Burgess was not sure it was necessary to provide advance warning in writing that an employee was suspected of abusing sick leave. Mr. Farrar also objected to the "suspected of abusing sick leave" wording. He said there might be cases when management wanted a doctor's certificate that an employee was well enough to return to work after a serious illness. He wanted to reword that section a little. Mr. Paulsen suggested setting a specific number of sick days after which a doctor's certificate would be required. Mr. Reinholz will work on the wording of the section. Regarding Section 4 of the same article, it was noted that the change was from 1 day to 5 and that "per year" should be added after that figure. The family members referred to here are the members of the immediate household, Mr. Reinholz said. Mr. Burgess wanted more time to think about this section, and Mr. Farrar agreed. Mr. Reinholz suggested wording of this nature be added, "If more than one day at one time is used, an employee must supply a reasonable explanation to the Chief of Police." Mr. Farrar said the city would like to make an offer of money which would be reasonably close to the final figure to be settled on. He felt the total salary increase requested was unreasonable, but he wanted to settle the basic money issues in a manner fair to both sides. A multi-year contract was also discussed. Mr. Farrar said the city would like to consider not having every item in the contract open for discussion every year, although he did not want to tie either side down financially for more than the period of one year. Money issues would be re-openable on a yearly basis. Mr. Reinholz agreed that it was costly to the membership to renegotiate every year. It was agreed to meet again on January 22. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.