Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 01/30/1980CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 30, 1980 The South Burlington City Council held a meeting with the Police Department Association to discuss the proposed contract on Wednesday, January 30, 1980 at 7:15 pm in the Assessor's Office, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen Member Absent Kenneth Jarvis Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Kevin Hayes, Steve Burke, Peter Lavallee, Douglas Bouvier, Charles Balserus Executive Session to discuss Police Department Association Proposed Contract At 7:15 pm Mr. Paulsen moved to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the proposed Police Department Association contract. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all were in favor. At 7:40 pm, Mr. Paulsen moved to come out of executive session. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all were in favor. All present were given copies of sheets entitled "Salary Comparison", "Benefit Comparison", and the city's new proposal on Article XXI, Insurance (see attached copies). Mr. Farrar said the proposal on Article XXI was part of the total compensation package. The city will provide $1 million major medical coverage, as requested. It will also pay the entire cost of the insurance benefits, as requested. The city proposes to increase the life insurance coverage from minimum-maximum of $10,000-$20,000 to $15000-$30,000. The city will also "insure or pay for" the cost of personal articles up to $100. Mr. Farrar said the city felt these modifications plus the salary package offered earlier provided a fair and equitable compensation. Mr. Farrar explained that the other two sheets were comparisons of South Burlington's salary and benefits with other communities in the area. The figures for Burlington are what the city has offered. Colchester's figures are agreed upon already, and Winooski and Essex are estimates. The figures on the benefit sheet contain an estimate of the cost to the municipality of the total benefit package. From the information on the sheets, Mr. Farrar concluded that the city was in the place it wanted to be with respect to comparative jobs in the surrounding communities. The figures for this city on the salary sheet are the midpoint of the range and these would be the exact figures if the police decide they do not want the merit plan. Mr. Farrar clarified that dependents as well as employees would be covered under the insurance plan proposed. The salary sheet also shows that, while South Burlington's pay increases for 25 years, Burlington's, for example, no longer increases after the 6th year. He pointed out that the city nearest to South Burlington's package was Burlington, and people in this city had a considerably better plan than Burlington's after the 6th year. Mr. Farrar said that if this offer were accepted, the city would be willing to discuss other monetary items such as the detectives clothing allowance. As far as the general picture, he said this was the offer. Mr. Reinholz wanted to respond to this offer at the next meeting. Mr. Farrar said the Council was divided on the arbitration issue. He proposed that, if a good settlement were made, as part of the contract the city would be willing to include that if there were a dispute on salaries next year that could not be resolved, that could be submitted to arbitration and that clause could be renewed from year to year. This Council does not want to commit future Councils to arbitration, but they would be willing to have it next year for compensation or salaries. Regarding a 2 year contract, Mr. Farrar preferred to discuss that next year. He did not think it would be wise or fair to the city or the police to tie them up for 2 years with the present economic situation. He said, however, that the city would look at a proposal if the association had one. Regarding arbitration and the reopening of issues, only economic issues would be opened unless both sides agreed that they wanted to discuss the contract language. The binding arbitration issue would be negotiable each year. At this point, the group went through the contract. Article I - Mr. Farrar said the city did not feel that sergeants were a proper part of the bargaining unit. He proposed spelling out in that section specifically who the bargaining unit was, but Mr. Reinholz said that would exclude anyone of a rank the city might create, such as privates. He felt the section as proposed made it clear who was in the unit. The Council felt that sergeants were supervisors and it was not proper to include them. Mr. Reinholz said that there were cases in the public and private sector where they were included. Mr. Reinholz wanted to hold off on this article. Mr. Farrar had no problem with section 3 of the article. Article II - It was proposed that "unless nullified or modified by this agreement" be dropped and new wording be inserted, similar to the following: that employees will have all the rights given to them under the Vermont Labor Relations Act. Management rights will also be spelled out and as part of that it will be spelled out that the personnel rules and regulations will apply except where they are abridged by this agreement. Mr. Reinholz agreed that that was the intent of the association. Mr. Farrar said some language could be worked out on that. Mr. Reinholz said that the members did not want a Charter change to violate language in the contract. Mr. Burgess said he would like to include language to the effect that this contract supercedes anything in the personnel rules and regulations. Mr. Reinholz did not object, but said the association would be willing to leave the language as it had been. Mr. Farrar wanted the City Attorney to look at any proposed language changes. The following was proposed: It is understood that the terms and conditions of this master contract will take precedence over the provisions in the personnel rules and regulations now in effect or to be adopted in the future. Article 3 - Mr. Farrar wanted to add "and that permission is granted" after the words "he/she shall request permission" in section 3. He also proposed to add to the end of the section, "Permission will not be withheld arbitrarily." Mr. Reinholz said the association regarded article III as a large concession, since as it now reads, permission cannot be denied. Article VII - Mr. Farrar noted that the city had not agreed to Section 2 and did not want to accede to the request. They do not feel it is right for a municipality to require an employee to pay a third party in order to work for the municipality. If the employees want to form an association, that is their right. Mr. Reinholz felt that if an employee reaped the benefits of negotiations, they should pay for part of the costs of negotiation and enforcement of the contract Mr. Burgess strongly disagreed. Article VIII- Mr. Reinholz said the association would drop section 1C, but he noted that IB had been violated and that what the members wanted was equity for the people covered by the bargaining unit. The members feel that when there are necessary adjustments to be made to the schedule, that is all right with them, but recently a notice had been posted that there would not be shift rotation, and that was a violation of the contract. Mr. Farrar said the situation would be corrected. In section 2 of the article the union wants to remove "every attempt", feeling that every attempt is not being made now. It was pointed out that without that wording, there was no flexibility. Mr. Reinholz said they did not want to nail the city down to something they could not live with. It was proposed to add a period after the word "posted" and then begin a new sentence as follows; "A two week notice shall be given prior to shift changes". The words "and every attempt shall be made to comply with" were removed. Article IX - On section 6, Mr. Farrar noted that a change had been made and agreed to except he had thought the personnel rules and regulations had something different and he did not have time to check into it. He agreed to the section and said that if there were changes, he did not think the union would object to reopening it later. That was all right with Mr. Reinholz. In section 9, the proposal is to raise the rate from $15 to $30 and this section ties into Article XXII regarding beepers. Mr. Reinholz said that the present contract said that any time worked in excess of 8 hours in a 24 hour period is overtime, but for one detective, from January 1 to December 31 of 1978 he received $780 for that period for being on stand-by duty at the $15 rate. (Stand-by duty means one cannot leave the house). This figure includes the time he spent on stand-by plus the time he was actually called back to work. He received no overtime, but if he had he would have been paid for 213 hours of such time (time he spent after being called in), for about $1891 of pay. Mr. Reinholz was not sure this was legal, because time in excess of 40 hours is overtime. He said the men were willing to double the present rate and not receive overtime pay. If they do not receive the $30, they would like to consider overtime pay for call-back time. Beepers were discussed, which would allow the men on stand-by to go anywhere in Chittenden County. Mr. Farrar felt only one beeper would be needed and that would be a cost of about $300. Another proposal was to pay time and a half with beepers. The association was willing to have beepers and the $30 or beepers and time and a half. Mr. Burke, a detective, felt the city might be better off with the $30 flat rate. Mr. Farrar asked what section 10 meant. The association wants to equalize overtime and Mr. Reinholz said the seniority list was just a mechanism to do that. He explained that on the first day the list would be posted and the first opportunity for overtime would be given to the first name on the list, if he were available. The union is not referring here to unscheduled overtime, where an accident might occur 5 minutes before the shifts changed, but an officer would work an hour of overtime to finish the job. Mainly what this refers to is extra shifts when an officer is unable to come in. The union is also not concerned at the possibility that the first man might be offered 8 hours and the next one offered only 2. They just want everyone to have a chance to work some overtime. Mr. Farrar saw no problem with what the union wanted to do here. Section 13 requires that overtime be offered to bargaining unit members before others. Mr. Reinholz said it would be offered to the members before part-time workers, for example. Mr. Farrar did not see a problem with that and said the city could come back with some language. Article X - Mr. Reinholz asked if the city had rejected all sections of the association's offer. He said they had a 2-year proposal. Mr. Farrar responded that the city did not reject the two year proposal but had not yet looked at it in detail. They are willing to look at a proposal for next year but they feel it would be hard to find a good settlement at this time because of uncertainties in the economy. Article XI - Mr. Reinholz asked if the city's proposal precluded changing section 2 and was told the city had not discussed it. Probably, if the union accepts the city's proposal, they will be willing to discuss section 2. The offer does, however, preclude changes to section 1. Article XIII - Mr. Farrar wanted to come back to this section at another date. Article XIII - On page 19, e. and f. may be moved to another section. On page 20, section 4 was discussed. Mr. Reinholz said the question was not whether or not there would be a shotgun provided, but where it would be located. Mr. Farrar did not see a problem with the gun, but he found it hard to specify what kind it would be in the contract. 8 more guns would be needed, and for the models specified, that would be a total cost of about $2500 at retail cost with no discount. The union specified a type of gun because they feel that when the employees are excluded from decisions of this kind, it works to the detriment of the city. They do not want to dictate to management, but they would like to provide some input. It was decided to take out the shotgun description and the words "for the protection and safety of all employees". Article XV - Mr. Farrar wanted to discuss this at the next meeting. Article XVI - Section 2, which is repeated elsewhere, was deleted. In section 3, Mr. Farrar asked if the union really meant that, upon termination, holiday and compensatory pay would be given at the rate earned, not the current rate, and was told they did. The section was changed so that a period was inserted after "regular rate of pay" and the rest of the section was deleted. In its place was put "Any accrued time will be paid at the current rate of pay". Article XVII - The city wants to think about sections 3 and 7. Article XVIII - It was noted that section 4d. was time chargeable against sick time. Mr. Farrar wanted to add the following to the end of section 4: "If more than one day at a time is used, the employee must supply a reasonable explanation to the Chief of Police." The Council has proposed a new Article XXI. It was decided that the next meeting would be Wednesday, February 6 at 7:30 pm. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.