Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/22/1980CITY COUNCIL AND POLICE DEPARTMENT UNION MEETING JANUARY 22, 1980 The South Burlington City Council and the Police Department Union held a meeting on Tuesday, January 22, 1980, in the Assessor's Office of the City Hall, Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont. MEMBERS PRESENT Council Chairman Paul F. Farrar; Councilmen William Burgess, Martin Paulsen, Michael Flaherty; Police Department Union members Charles Balserus, Douglas Bouview, Ronald Demers, Kevin Hayes, Stephen Burke, Peter Lavallee; and Mr. Lansing Reinholz. MEMBERS ABSENT Councilman Kenneth Jarvis OTHERS PRESENT City Manager William J. Szymanski POLICE DEPARTMENT ASSOCIATION PROPOSED CONTRACT Chairman Farrar called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M., and distributed to those present a Salary Proposal dated January 22, 1980. He explained that the basic salaries in Grades 8 and 9 have been increased about 8.9%, and there were positive adjustments in merit and longevity. This gave a percentage increase from a minimum of 10 1/2% to 11% for those who are in the bargaining unit. For patrolmen with slightly over 8 years service it is an 11% increase and for those with 5 years service the increase is slightly under 11%, Mr. Farrar said the Council felt that this was a reasonable percentage with respect to the other city departments. Mr. Reinholz said he and the Association members would like to discuss the proposal and they then left at 8:00 P.M. to meet on the matter in another room. At 8:20 P.M. the Association members and Mr. Reinholz rejoined the Council. Mr. Reinholz said they had looked over the Council proposal and asked if this proposal was the whole economic package or just the salary Mr. Farrar said it was the salary, longevity and shift differential. Mr. Reinholz pointed out that the proposal figures are below those of neighboring communities, namely, Winooski, Essex, and Burlington. He said that a patrolman just left Essex to work for South Burlington and his salary was down about $1,000 per year. He said with the city's proposal the difference between one year and another is only around $3.00 a week, and a person would not even net that with social security and tax deductions. Mr. Reinholz then said that they rejected the salary proposal as presented and were offering a counter proposal that is considerably less than the first request. He distributed copies of the counter proposal. Mr. Reinholz said that they had initially proposed a 20% pay raise, but after looking at the city's proposal, they were modifying their proposal and were now requesting a 14% increase on the base, would work for a two-year contract, and would drop the proposal for shift differential, longevity and salary. He said that this counter proposal was considerably less than the original proposal. Chairman Farrar said the Council would discuss the new proposal and would meet with them again at a date to be set later. The Association and City Proposals are attached to and made a part of these minutes. CHANGES TO PROPOSED AGREEMENT Mr. Reinholz distributed suggested changes to the Agreement in the following sequence: ARTICLE X - PAY SCHEDULES SECTION 1: Language the same. Change the percentage to 14%. SECTION 2: Drop the current proposal. Add this as the new proposal, "1981-1982 salaries shall be determined by increasing the salary schedule base and therefore all other steps of the schedule by a figure reflecting the CPI increase as defined above, for the period July 1, 1980 to July 1, 1981, but not less than 3% nor more than 14%, (except as noted below): (In the event that the July 1980-July 1981 CPI increase shall exceed 14%, then the 14% limitation on the salary increase shall be increased by one- half percent (1 1/2%) for each full percent by which the CPI exceeds 14%; provided, however, that in no event shall the aggregate salary increase exceed 16%)." SECTION 2b (NEW) All present employees shall be considered REDLINED with regard to salaries. They shall be positioned on the salary schedule in the appropriate place according to their years service in the department and years credited for prior service. The 1980-1981 salary increase will be added to the current salary. Increases for succeeding years shall be as follows: added to the salary will be the amount of any increase in the base (as it applies to the appropriate step) and the amount of the step increase. The base increase and step increase shall be computed by using the salary schedule figures, not the employees' REDLINED salaries. Mr. Reinholz explained that these changes would insure that increases would be based on increases in salary, that now raises are based on percentage of base not salary. He said that some employees may be over or under the actual step, and also emphasized that the same percentage increase apply to everyone, that it did not work out under the merit system. Mr. Farrar said yes, there were differences, that an employee did not get an increase under that system if he/she did not merit an increase. There was no decision made on the changes to Article 10. The Council wanted to go over them and plan to discuss them at the next meeting. On the same sheet the following changes were noted but not discussed: ARTICLE XXIII - DURATION OF AGREEMENT SECTION 1 Line 2, change 1981 to 1982. SECTION 2 Line 5, change 1981 to 1982. ARTICLE IX - OVERTIME SECTION 6 Add at end of section "with at least one week's notice to the Police Chief or his designee. If two employees with equal seniority request the same time off and only one can have it, the employee submitting the request first shall be the one to receive the time." Mr. Farrar wondered if it would be difficult to respond to a request if the shift is already made up when someone asks for compensatory time. Mr. Reinholz said denial cannot be made arbitrarily. If there is a shift problem the request has to be denied. Mr. Farrar said he saw no problem with the change and all were in agreement. ARTICLE XV - OFF DUTY WORK SECTION 3 Add at end of section "Issued equipment shall mean that described in Article XIII, Sections 1 and 2." It was agreed to add the words "with the exception of paragraphs e and f to the above change and to add another section designating "e and f". SECTION 8 (NEW) "No employee will perform off-duty work in excess of four (4) hours immediately prior to his/her shift assignment. If an employee's name is next on the off-duty work list and it conflicts with his/her shift assignment, the off-duty work will be offered to the next name on the list with the passed-over employee's name remaining on the list as the next eligible for work. Section 8 will also apply when the employee cannot be contacted when off duty." After discussion the first sentence in this section (SECTION 8 (NEW) was amended to read "No officer can perform off-duty work in excess of four (4) hours in the 12 hour period immediately before the start of his or her shift assignment. SECTION 9 (NEW) "Employees may decline the offer of off-duty work. In declining off-duty work, the employee forfeits his/her right to off-duty work until his/her name is again reached in order of seniority." All agreed there was no problem with the change. SECTION 10 "Payment for off-duty work will be made by the City, which in turn will handle all billing and collecting. Rates charged by the City for off-duty work will be established by the City." All agreed there was no problem with the change. SECTION 11 (NEW) "Employees will not be eligible for off-duty work while on the mandatory five (5) consecutive days of vacation time. However, the employees name will remain in place on the off-duty work list." It was agreed to accept these changes to Article XV and the amendments as underlined under ARTICLE XV - SECTION 3 and SECTION 8 upon approval of the City Attorney. ARTICLE XVIII - SICK LEAVE SECTION 3b (NEW) "A doctor's certificate or an examination by the City's physician at the City's expense may be required by the City Manager if, a), records show a trend or pattern to an employee's absence attributed to illness, or, b), if the employer questions the employee's fitness to return or perform the duties of the employee's position." After a short discussion it was agreed to add the following sentence to SECTION 3b (New): "If the employee has seen a physician for the illness he will be required to supply the City with a certificate upon request." It was agreed to accept the changes to Article XVIII, Section 3b (new) with the underlined addition, however the material would be forwarded to the City Attorney for review. Another meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, January 30, 1980 to discuss the Police Department Association's salary proposal. Mr. Reinholz asked if the Council had any answer to the questions on binding arbritation, grievances, and discipline and discharge and Mr. Farrar said no. Mr. Paulsen made a motion to adjourn at 9:25 P. M. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burgess and passed unanimously. Approved Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.