Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/16/1982CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 16, 1982 The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 1982 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; William Burgess, Hugh Marvin Member Absent Michael Flaherty Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Albert Audette, Street Department; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper Mr. Szymanski noted that this meeting had been intended to meet with the police union, but their negotiator, Lansing Reinholz, had been ill and unable to come in. Meet with Albert Audette to receive his comments on the proposed highway department contract In Article VII, it was noted that there was no "off-duty work" in this department and that should be removed. Mr. Audette asked about the wording regarding seniority with regard to holidays. Mr. Farrar's felt it meant that the most senior man would have first choice as to whether or not to work a holiday, but he said it could be discussed and cleared up. In Article IX, Mr. Audette wondered if the word "Union" in the first line should be "department" instead, but was told that the city only bargains with the bargaining unit, so the contract applies only to them. Mr. Audette did not understand the third paragraph in Article X. Mr. Farrar said they could clean up the wording on that one. Mr. Burgess wondered if the word "any" in the second line of the third paragraph should be "a higher". He said the wording should be changed to agree with the facts, so the Council did not later have to change the facts to agree with the wording. Mr. Audette noted that Section 5 in Article XII was the same as Article XIII, Section 6. Mr. Audette asked how the 12 holidays out of the 13 shown in Article XIV would be arrived at and was told that at the start of the year, the men in the department would decide which 12 they wanted. Mr. Farrar said the intent was to allow what has been the practice now. It was suggested that the words "to be established by the union by January 1״ added after the words "following thirteen days" in that article. Mr. Marwin felt the 12 days should be listed, not 13 with a choice of 12. Mr. Szymanski noted that Section 2 in Article XIV was not correct and Mr. Farrar said that would be cleaned up. In Article XV, Section 8, Mr. Audette asked what that meant. Mr. Farrar said that if the person was not at home, he could not be disciplined, but if he was at home, he would have to report for work. Mr. Audette was concerned that he might tell people that it could snow the coming weekend, and if one person went away anyway, he would be short a worker. Mr. Audette was also concerned about having to post the seniority list on the bulletin board, as set forth in Section 9 of that article. He also did not like the "temporary emergency" wording in Section 10. He read the old language and Mr. Marvin said he liked the former wording much better. Mr. Audette also noted that in Section 11 of the article, his department did not have shift work and he felt that Section 13 would only apply to the landfill operation. Mr. Audette asked whether the $250 in Article XVIII, Section 2 applied to the mechanic's tools, which are considerably more expensive than that and was told that was different. Those tools are insured for about $5,000. Mr. Szymanski noted that the words "or equivalent" should be added after the dental and health plans set forth in this article. In Article XXIII, Mr. Audette noted that the word "working" should be added after the numbers in Sections 4, 6, and 11. In Article XXV, Mr. Audette noted that it stated that there should be an hour for lunch, and his employees have agreed to 1/2 hour, so Mr. Farrar said that should be stated instead. Mr. Audette asked when the vacation time policy would go into effect and was told it would be as of last July. In Section 8 of that article, it was noted that the words "As of January 1, 1979" should be removed. Mr. Audette asked when this contract would go into effect and was told if would become effective on the date it was signed until the end of the coming year, except for the salary item. Other business Mr. Minnich said he had called the present carrier of the pension fund, as requested last night, and had been told that the 6% interest was an actuarial figure - actually the city is getting 9$. The carrier also does not feel that short-term investments are the best way to deal with pension funds, but they can change the city's plan if requested to. It was decided that since there seemed to be some confusion on this issue, it would be best to wait a while and get some things clarified. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.