Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 04/06/1982CITY COUNCIL APRIL 6, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, April 6, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Mini-Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Howard Perkett, William Burgess, Hugh Marvin Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Kevin Hayes, Richard Carter, Police Chief; Charles Balserus, Ernie Rheaume Continue review of contract with the Police Department Association Mr. Reinholz said the Assistant City Manager was to have brought in some wording on sick pay. Mr. Szymanski said that had not been done, because the Assistant had been called out of town. Mr. Reinholz said he would like to get the package of non-monetary issues which were presented 2 meetings ago out of the way. Mr. Farrar felt there were problems with some of those issues, and he hoped to be able to make some progress tonight on money issues. He said he would like to discuss the union's concern about disability. Mr. Reinholz said the initial proposal had been for retirement disability, but the second issue included was work other than as a police officer. The way the union saw how this would work, he said, was if someone were hurt in the line of duty (and the reason for the request for disability insurance was that some of the union members have limited sick time), they might be able to return to some job in the city, preferably in the police department. Mr. Farrar asked if the union was asking for this only if the officer was injured in the line of duty and was told that in broad terms they were talking of someone injured in the line of duty or who could not work as a police officer. Mr. Reinholz referred to Article XVII, section 8. If there is a position in which the disabled person can function and for which he is qualified, he will be offered the opportunity to take that job, whether it is in the Street Department, City Hall, etc. Mt. Farrar asked whether the language meant a job would have to be created for the person and Mr. Reinholz said it would not. Mr. Farrar asked whether the union meant that the disabled officer would be given the chance to fill the first available position for which he was qualified and was told that was correct. Mr. Marvin asked whether the person would only have one chance to take such a job and Mr. Reinholz said he would have one shot at it and if he did not take it, the city would have no further obligation toward him. At this time the union left the room so the Council could discuss the idea. When the union returned, Mr. Reinholz noted that the last sentence in Article XVII, section 8 had been removed. Mr. Farrar stated that the Council felt the concept proposed was a good one and that the city would like to figure out a way to do it. The Council does not want to put this in the contract, feeling that it should be in the Personnel Rules and Regulations and should be referenced in the contract. It may be applied to other city employees. Mr. Farrar said a number of questions about the policy had come up during discussion. If an officer was unable to work as a policeman, but could work in the highway department for example, if there were a job open for an equipment operator for which job the policeman was qualified, but barely, and there were a man already in the highway department who normally would be promoted to the higher position, would the police officer bump the highway man, or would he be offered the job the highway employee would vacate to fill the equipment operator job? Mr. Reinholz said the union felt management should say who is best qualified for the job and they just want some protection. They felt the officer would be offered the vacated job of the promoted highway employee. Mr. Farrar asked about retention of seniority. The Council assumes a disabled person would retain city seniority, but would he accrue seniority while he was not working for the city? Mr. Reinholz said he would return to a city job with his accrued seniority, but not seniority from time off the job. Mr. Reinholz said he would like to discuss putting this policy in the Personnel Rules and Regulations, with the members, so they left the room. When they returned, Mr. Reinholz said they did not have a problem with having it in the Rules, and referenced in the contract, but they noted that, with the next election, the Council members could change, and they did not want the policy changed without some input from the union. Mr. Farrar said some language on that could be proposed. Mr. Reinholz noted that a grievance had been filed recently and resolved before it got to Council level, but the last sentence in the resolution stated that the issue should be resolved through negotiations to make the language less ambiguous. The issue involved is in Article XIII, section 1Bb. A person was recently assigned to the position of detective and the issue was when he would receive the clothing allowance. The administration felt the person was temporary until he was off probation, but the union felt the language specified he would receive the money when assigned. They feel the language should be clarified, and Mr. Reinholz passed out copies of proposed language on this. As far as other money issues, Mr. Reinholz said that in Article IX, section 15, the sides agreed on everything except who is included in counting detectives. The union will hold on that one. In Article X, section 1, the union was requesting 12% and will move to a 10% request but they still want the merit provision eliminated. The 10% refers to the salary for a person at grade 8, 3rd level. Article X, section 2 would stay as proposed, which has been agreed to, but the Council wants to tie it to merit. Mr. Farrar noted that the union proposal would do away with levels for bargaining unit members, but other policemen might keep levels, so Mr. Reinholz said they would then assume that section 2 would refer to level 3. The union wants to hold on its proposal for Article X, section 3, although the years are flexible, and the union is willing to discuss changes to the specific years mentioned. The union will also hold on section 4 in that article. They were not sure anyone could be forced to pass a motorcycle test, so they could not be forced to work on the motorcycle. He was not sure one could be forced to work on the ERT team either. Mr. Reinholz said the union would drop section 6, but reluctantly, will hold on section 7 and will drop section 8. They will also drop section 1 of Article XI. They are holding on Article XIII, section 1Bb, and in Article XIV, they want to change the minimum number of hours in section 2 from 4 to 3 and they will drop section 3. The words "on scheduled work days" will be removed from section 2. Mr. Farrar asked whether, if an officer was scheduled to work until 4:00 and he was at court, which did not finish until 5:00, he would receive a minimum of 3 hours. Mr. Hayes said he did not think so - only if he had to come in on a day he was off-duty. That would only apply to time not scheduled for work, or not contiguous to a work period. Mr. Farrar felt more language was needed on that item. Mr. Reinholz said they would drop Article XVI, and in Article XVII, section 5 they will drop the request for disability retirement and change the request to having disability, but it will not be appropriate for that section. Mr. Farrar thought that as part of the retirement plan, a disabled person would be vested in any accrued retirement benefit, but he asked Mr. Szymanski to check on that. Mr. Reinholz noted that the life insurance policy was supposed to provide for double indemnity, but the publication put out by Connecticut General did not mention that. Mr. Szymanski was asked to check on and fix that. Mr. Reinholz said the union would like to keep Article XVII, section 7, but would drop Article XVIII, section 6. They still feel it is a good idea, though. In Article XXI, the union has proposed eliminating the deductible. He said the plan is supposed to be equivalent to Blue Cross Plan 2, and he was not sure that had a deductible. If it does not, the city may be in violation, and he asked that that be checked into. Mr. Farrar noted that the plan the city has is the one discussed with the union last year, and he said the city had not intended to give the union something other than what was discussed. In section 4 of article XXI, Mr. Reinholz asked whether the city already had those limits. Mr. Szymanski said they had $2 1/2 million per incident. It would cost about $1200 per year to add another $2 million. Mr. Reinholz said they would drop section 4. They will also drop section 6, and in section 7 they want to propose an increase to 1.5 from the present 1.3. The union will drop section 8, but wants to hold onto section 9. In Article XXII, section 6, the union wants to keep the proposal, but they are willing to look at other numbers of courses. They want to see something started in this direction. They will drop section 20. If it turns out that the high school room can be used, everyone will get a chance to use it, because of shift rotation. Mr. Reinholz hoped this would be looked into. Mr. Farrar felt the Council should take some time to consider the proposals. He noted that in negotiations with City Hall Employees Association the Council had raised its salary offer to 7% and they will make the same offer to the police. The next meeting date was set for next Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 1- DRAFT - SBPOA ARTICLE XI11 Section I Bmbm (~ddition)r Payment of the clothing \ I allowance hall be made on the first pay date after the aasi~nment to non-uniformed statue. ARTICLE XIII Section dm (New) r "Newly appointedw and "Permanently assignedw as used in Section I. Bmb. above shall mean appointed an the result of examination and from the first day so assigned including any probationary period. Tf an employee is temporarily assigned by administrative directive he/she shall receive the clothing allowance as follows; I. If the ausigned period is to be of an unknown duration, payment will be made on the first pay date after the anniversary of the sixth m~nth. 2. If the assigned period is known in advance to be for more than oix months, payment will be made in the same manner ae described for permanent appointee80 1 ARTICLE XI11 Section lmBmem (new)* I Any employee permanently or temporarily asaigned to Detective I atatus will have the use of an unmarked cruiser including its une to and from home on all scheduled duty daya.