Loading...
04-26-1993 - Special '--' '#f11tII CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1993 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES Mayor Jack Hayman called a Special Meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Jack Hayman Councilman Kirk Jones Councilwoman Louise Martin Councilman Michael Hays Councilman David Mitchum City Manager George McMahon City Attorney Krista Storey City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Statement of Meetinq Purpose bv the Mavor Mayor Hayman explained the meeting is for the purpose of resolving the collective bargaining impasse between the City and the Volusia County Public Employees Association and the Coastal Florida Police Benevolent Association. Explanation of Procedure bv the Mavor Mayor Hayman explained there would be opening statements by the City bargaining Committee which would be limited to five minutes. Following that, there would be a representative from the PEA/PBA which would also be limited to five minutes. Mayor Hayman explained next there would be a presentation by the City Bargaining Committee on impasse items, and then a presentation by the PEA/PBA representative on impasse items. Mayor Hayman stated the City Council holds the right to ask questions of either side during the course of the presentations or at the conclusions. Mayor Hayman stated following that, there will be a rebuttal by the City Bargaining Committee which would be limited to 10 minutes and then a rebuttal by the PEA/PBA representative which would be limited to 10 minutes. Mayor Hayman explained then there would be Council discussion and then Council will formulate its decision on the PEA/PBA agreements. Following these decisions, we will adjourn. Attorney Sugarman questioned having comments from the public. He requested the public be able to make comments to Council. Mayor Hayman stated they had elected not to do that until after the proceedings. Councilman Jones asked when that decision was made. He thought the public should be involved. Councilman Mitchum suggested letting them speak after the rebuttals. Councilman Jones stated with time restraints, that would be in the best interest for everybody. Councilman Hays stated he doesn't have a problem with citizen comments, he suggested a time limit is necessary. ... ....." It was decided three minutes was sufficient. Mayor Hayman explained citizen comments would be after the rebuttals. openinq statement from city Barqaininq Committee - limited to 5 minutes Attorney Bill Andrews introduced himself and City Attorney Krista storey. He explained they would be representing the City's position. Attorney Andrews listed the representatives for the city. He explained the supervisors chose to ratify their contract, however, the general employees and police chose not to ratify their contracts. Attorney Andrews explained the City Council's role is to determine whether the impasse issues should be included in the collective bargaining agreement. He explained Council needs to decide what is in the best public interest. Attorney Andrews feels once they have heard arguments from both sides they will conclude that it is in the public interest to include all impasse items in the collective bargaining agreement. Attorney Andrews briefly listed some of the impasse items and stated the union has clearly mischaracterized the City's proposals and in doing so we feel they have done some great disservice to themselves, the City, and the employees they represent. Openinq statement from PEA/PBA representative - limited to 5 minutes Attorney Sugarman explained the opening statement would be given by the Union vice President Harvey Wiggins and Union President Halligan. Union vice President Harvey Wiggins introduced himself and gave a summary of what has happened since the negotiations began. Union President Halligan commented on a letter sent to the city council by him. Attorney Sugarman explained in summary what he feels the problem is. He explained what is in the contract now makes sense. It is fair to both sides and it gives the employees some security and moral towards their careers with the city. Attorney Sugarman stated the Union is not seeking to go one step forward in these negotiations. He explained they are just asking to keep things the way they are. Attorney Sugarman explained what has been proposed from the Union is what the City employees want. He stated the City's negotiating team has proposed not to give the City employees anything but to take away. He asked to give the employees no more than they have now plus a 2% cost of living adjustment. presentation bv city Barqaininq Committee on Impasse Items Attorney Andrews explained each of the following items for the PBA/PEA: contracting out for employees in management rights, strikes & lockouts, investigations which may result in disciplinary action, sick leave/vacation time, seniority, deleting the language, the City agrees that no adverse action will be taken as any employee who exercises the right provided in this article, wages. Page -2- Council special Meeting April 26, 1993 -' """" Attorney Andrews explained each of the following items for the PEA: promotions and bereavement leave. City Attorney Storey explained each of the following items for the PBA/PEA: disability leave because of injury and off-duty injuries, PEA - overtime for board secretaries and callback, $150 clothing allowance, and trained operators per shift which is no longer an issue. Mayor Hayman asked if Council had any questions. There were none at this time. Presentation bv PEA/PBA representative on Impasse Items Attorney Sugarman explained the Unions side for each of the following items: subcontracting out, strikes and lockouts, suspension without pay during investigations, forfeiture of sick leave/vacation time, seniority, retaliation, wages, promotions, bereavement leave, employees injured on duty, two hour minimum call back for secretaries, $150 clothing allowance, and changing employees schedules in the middle of the week to avoid payment of overtime. The meeting recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:43 p.m. Attorney Sugarman closed his discussion about seniority. Rebuttal by City Barqaining Committee - limited to 10 minutes Attorney Andrews stated the City had no rebuttal but stated Ms. Storey neglected to discuss one item. Mayor Hayman asked for comments from Council. City Attorney Storey spoke about changing an employee's schedule in the middle of the week to avoid overtime. Once again, Mayor Hayman asked for comments from Council. Councilman Jones suggested waiting until after rebuttals. Once again, the City had not rebuttal. Rebuttal bv PEA/PBA representative - limited to 10 minutes Attorney Sugarman stated the City is claiming management rights to schedule employees whenever they want. He requested scheduling be done at least a week in advance. He continued discussion on changing an employees schedule. Citizen Comments Dave Colee, 1716 willow Oak Drive, stated when you stop and think about this, Council ran for a job in the last election and when everyone got together and figured it out each Councilman was offered a job. He stated the citizens job is to live in the City and maintain the City the best way they can. He stated when he looks out on the street he wants to see people who are happy working for the City and who are going to do the best job they can. He stated it seems the City's position is to gut the contract. He stated he hired Council to keep everyone happy. He stated this is not creating a rewarding environment. Charles Kossuth, 2103 Orange Tree Drive, stated this is the saddest day of his life in Edgewater because of the problems that are before Council. He stated he can not believe the Council has ordered the City Manager and City Attorney to rape the employees of the City. He asked for faith and honest vote to over turn this. He suggested firing the City Manager. Page -3- Council Special Meeting April 26, 1993 '-' ..., Ben Wagner, 3036 Travelers Palm Drive, stated the only time the audience shows any concern is on behalf of the City employees. He stated the only time anyone sees Council is when they come around asking the citizens to help them get elected. He stated they see the City employees every day of their lives. He stated he would rather see the City employees happy all the time than Council happy tonight. Hal Jones, 3015 Sabal Palm Drive, stated the only thing he can say is sit back, take off the ties and sit with the public, look up at the Council that is sitting up there. You are thinking why do they want to take it away. He stated he still hasn't heard the reason why. Jeanne DelNigro, 3130 Tamarind Drive, stated they should keep the 2% raise that was put aside effective October 1992. She stated she feels the contract should be kept the way it is. She stated if the City Manager was fired, he would want it all. Why is there a double standard for City employees. Joan Strong, 1801 India Palm Drive, spoke about seniority. She explained the employees should not be punished. She presented a petition to Council with 290 signatures supporting the employees. She also mentioned several petitions were stolen out of stores. Dan Blazi, Edgewater Police Officer, stated he doesn't know if this is the smartest thing to be doing. My mother worked for the City, my father worked for the City, my sister worked for the City, and I work for the City and I am a person. Gigi Bennington, 121 Virginia Street, stated she knows how Council is feeling. She stated she doesn't agree with everything the union is saying or some of the things management is proposing. She stated if she was sitting up there, she doesn't know if she would go with management. They appear to be the strong arm. She stated it is in the best interest of the employees, management and citizens, for Council to leave the contract the way it is. Riley Burch, 1401 S. Riverside Drive, spoke about articles on raises in the newspapers. He stated an unhappy police force is not in the best interest of the City. He spoke about a situation he had regarding the police. He stated take care of our police force and the people in Edgewater. Thomas VanPelt, 3500 Omni Drive, stated 2% is a small amount to pay for the services the public has. He stated you are going to have an organized police department or you are going to have organized crime. Dennis Fischer, PEA representative, read a prepared statement at this time. He asked Council to make the employees feel wanted and appreciated, give them something they can hold on to and the job security that many people do not have, give them a reason to feel good about being a City of Edgewater employee and the respect they deserve and need, give them a raise, give them a solid contract to show that you care. Council Discussion Councilman Mitchum asked what format they are going to follow. He asked if they wanted to handle this line by line. Council agreed they should do it line by line. Council Decision on PBA Aqreement Mayor Hayman explained they are going to start with the PBA items for impasse. Page -4- Council Special Meeting April 26, 1993 'W' ""'" Councilman Mitchum spoke about Article III, Item K on page 6. Councilman Mitchum stated he has no intentions of ever being policed by private industry. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to strike Item K from Article III, seconded by Councilman Hays. Councilman Hays feels item by item is the best format to use. Councilman Jones stated he doesn't remember going into great detail about subcontracting out. He stated there is no way he would ever agree to something like that. He can not support that type of language. The motion CARRIED 5-0. Councilman Mitchum questioned Article 5. He stated he didn't understand the reasoning for this. There was further discussion between Attorney Sugarman, Attorney Andrews and Council on the strike/lockout article. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to leave the paragraph in the contract as it reads, seconded by Councilwoman Martin. The motion CARRIED 4-1. Councilman Jones voted NO. Mayor Hayman read paragraph F, Article 7 on page 11. City Attorney Storey explained this is for the deletion of language. Councilman Jones asked if receiving compensatory time has been a practice in the past instead of receiving overtime. City Manager McMahon stated the law states you can accumulate just so much comp time before the City must pay overtime. He stated the City follows that law. He stated when the employees get overtime they get time and a half and when they take comp time they get time and a half time approved. Councilman Jones stated a 2% raise and we would have been out of here sounds a lot better than where they are now. There were concerns expressed on this matter by all Councilmembers. Attorney Sugarman stated this is not fair and they were told after the rebuttal was over with we would have a chance to interrupt your discussions. He stated this is not fair because the City Manager was a member of the City's negotiating team. City Manager McMahon defined the question on management rights. He explained the rights of this contract give or not give the ability to manage this City to this City Council. He stated he is not taking the employees rights away. Mayor Hayman stated they need to figure out what it is they need to do as a team collectively to get the most bang out of their dollar. There was discussion on whether or not this item has been abused. Mayor Hayman stated he feels there are enough safeguards in the system to protect the employees from abuse. Councilman Hays made a motion to leave this section the way it is, seconded by Councilwoman Martin. The motion CARRIED 4-1. Councilman Jones voted NO. Page -5- Council Special Meeting April 26, 1993 ~ ~ City Attorney storey asked Councilman Hays to clarify his motion. He stated management should have the right to change the schedule after 48 hours. City Attorney storey explained the City's proposal was to delete that language which would allow the alteration of the schedule. She stated the PEA/PBA's proposal is to leave that sentence in that contract. Attorney Sugarman gave an explanation of what was actually being proposed by the City and the Union. The next item for discussion was Article 9 Item A. There was discussion between Council and the Attorneys on this item. Attorney Sugarman explained if the City is going to add this right to suspend employees without pay they should add the conditions under which they do it but it does not state that here. Attorney Andrews explained in the event the City has sufficient grounds to suspend somebody pending investigation and if the investigation takes five days and suppose the decision is to terminate, it is not in the publics interest to keep that person on the payroll when he is not working and then five days later terminate the employee. City Manager explained the personnel manual spells out the details. Councilman Hays stated at the end of the ten day period whatever the problem is, it will be resolved one way or the other or the employee will be reinstated. Attorney Sugarman stated if it is not resolved in ten days, the employee goes back on the payroll. There was continued discussion on this matter. Councilman Hays stated he would appreciate no distractions from some member of the audience so he can get to the bottom of what is fair for the city. Councilman Jones questioned if the employee is suspended, can he use his personal time and unused vacation time that is on the books. Attorney Andrews explained. Attorney Sugarman explained we should at least know the reason for the employee being suspended. There is no requirement the employee even be told. He stated it should be added that the employee will be notified of the reason for suspension. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to approve Article 9 and add the employee will be notified of the reason for suspension, seconded by Councilwoman Jones. The motion CARRIED 5-0. The next item to be discussed was Article 12 Item C. City Attorney Storey explained the issue here which generated the proposals was to the consistency of our contracts. There was a proposal to drop that time frame back down. Councilman Jones stated 180 days is a nice benefit but 135 days seems reasonable. There was continued discussion on this article and workers compensation benefits. Page -6- Council Special Meeting April 26, 1993 ~ ~ Councilman Mitchum made a motion to leave Article 12, Item C, as stated, seconded by Councilman Jones. Councilman Jones questioned how much money the City would be saving. The motion CARRIED 5-0. City Attorney Storey informed the Council there was one more item on injuries. Councilman Mitchum questioned what City Attorney Storey was addressing. He questioned if it was in the proposed agreement. City Attorney Storey explained the City has no legal obligations for any non-duty related injuries. Attorney Sugarman explained there is language in the current contract that we want to keep in the new contract that they want to cut out that says what happens to employees who have a non- duty related injury or illness. Attorney Sugarman read the language the City proposed to take out of the contract. City Attorney Storey stated there is no legal obligation to the City so why have that language in the contract. There was continued discussion on non-duty related injuries. Councilman Jones made a motion to keep this item as is, seconded by Councilwoman Martin. The motion CARRIED 5-0. The next item to be discussed was Article 13 Sick Leave (B). Attorney Andrews suggested discussing Article 13 and Article 14 in conjunction. Attorney Andrews read Section B. There was some discussion on what a first degree felony would be. There was discussion on when you should lose your accrued sick leave and vacation time when you are fired. Attorney Sugarman stated just because you have reason to fire someone should not be a reason to strip them for that. Attorney Sugarman explained they are arguing what an employee has to do to lose the right to get paid. Attorney Andrews explained the employee is given an opportunity to resign and if the employee feels he has been unfairly treated by the DCR, the employee can file a grievance. Attorney Sugarman stated the question is, should the employee get paid for the sick leave that wasn't used before he was fired. Attorney Sugarman stated the City is asking for just cause and the union is asking for first degree felony. Mayor Hayman expressed his feelings on this situation. Attorney Sugarman explained the answer could be between just cause and first degree felony. City Attorney Storey clarified the way Attorney Sugarman was presenting his side and what is actually being proposed. Page -7- Council Special Meeting April 26, 1993 ........ ., Councilman Jones stated most employees who use their sick time are usually the ones in trouble who are probably going to be fired and they aren't going to have any sick time. A good employee who has put in service and accumulated sick time should be entitled to the time he has accrued. Councilman Hays made a motion to add the language except for a criminal act, theft from the City or embezzlement from the City, an employee is entitled to a lump sum payment for any unused portion of accrued sick leave, seconded by Councilman Mitchum. Attorney Andrews questioned if DCR decides whether a crime has been committed. He requested to add the criminal act need not result in conviction. There was some discussion on criminal acts. Councilman Hays amended his motion to specify criminal act as determined by DCR, seconded by Councilman Mitchum. The motion CARRIED 5-0. The next item for discussion is Article 18, Seniority, Layoffs and Recall Item B. Mayor Hayman asked Attorney Andrews to define the issue which he did at that time. Attorney Sugarman explained the language being proposed by the union is the language that is in the current contract. He read the language he was referring to. Councilman Jones expressed his concerns about what signaled this proposal. Attorney Andrew explained there is no intent to layoff and the contract proposed by the City does protect seniority. Councilman Mitchum stated he argued against this during executive session but now he feels they should stay with the original contract. Mayor Hayman expressed his concerns to the City Manager and City Attorney on seniority in the executive sessions the Council attended. Councilman Hays and Councilman Mitchum expressed their feelings about this matter. Chief Schumaker expressed his concerns on this item. Councilwoman Martin expressed her concerns at this time. Councilwoman Martin made a motion to use the language in the original contract, seconded by Councilman Jones. The motion CARRIED 3-2. Mayor Hayman and Councilman Hays voted NO. The next item to be discussed was Article 24 - Internal Investigations and Obligations to the Public. Attorney Andrews made a presentation of the City's side at this time. Attorney Sugarman then presented his side. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to delete this section, seconded by Councilman Hays. The motion CARRIED 5-0. The next item for discussion is Article 31 - Wages. Page -8- Council Special Meeting April 26, 1993 '-' ...., Attorney Andrews clarified this item for Council. Mayor Hayman asked Mr. Munoz to come to the podium. Mr. Munoz stated the money is there. Councilman Hays made a motion to make the 2% wage adjustment retro-active back to October 1, 1992, seconded by Councilman Jones. The motion CARRIED 5-0. Councilman Hays requested a five minute recess. Council Decision on PEA Aqreement The next items to be discussed pertained to the PEA only. The first item to be discussed is Article 12 - Promotions. Attorney Andrews gave a brief explanation of this item. Councilman Hays asked who is going to do the work if there is a six month probationary period. Attorney Sugarman gave Councilman Hays an explanation at this time. There was continued discussion on the six month probationary period. Mayor Hayman expressed his concerns on this matter. There was discussion on how long the probationary period should be for an employee to be able to go back to the original position. Councilman Jones was in favor of the six month probationary period. He doesn't feel one month is in the best interest of the employee. Attorney Andrews expressed his concerns from the City's side. Attorney Sugarman suggested a six month probationary period and a 90-day escape period. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to go with City's proposal, seconded by Councilman Hays. The motion CARRIED 4-1. The next item for discussion was Article 21 - Hours of Work and Overtime. City Attorney Storey explained this is for whether employees should get paid the actual time worked for call back or if there should be a minimum. There was continued discussion on how much time a secretary should get for a meeting. Mr. Karet gave an explanation of how the secretaries are currently paid. Attorney Sugarman explained when the secretaries were hired they were told they were getting a two hour minimum and now the City wants to take that away from them. Mayor Hayman expressed his concerns on this item. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to change this to a one hour minimum for scheduled callback, and two hour minimum for unexpected callback, seconded by Councilwoman Martin. The motion CARRIED 5-0. Page -9- Council Special Meeting April 26, 1993 '-' ""'" The next item for discussion was Article 25 - Bereavement Leave Attorney Andrews presented the City's side at this time. City Attorney Storey explained the only provision is the City would have a right to request evidence of a death. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to standardize with the SPEA and PBA and go with three days, seconded by Councilman Hays. Councilman Jones feels we should keep things the way they are. Councilman Hays expressed his concerns for going with three days. The motion CARRIED 4-1. Councilman Jones voted NO. The next and last item for discussion is Article 28 - Uniform, Clothing and Equipment. City Attorney Storey presented the City's side at this time. Councilman Mitchum feels this is a gift because the clerical employees are not required to wear any type of uniform. Councilman Hays feels if you are going to give the money, get something for it. There was continued discussion on this matter. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to delete this item from the contract and follow the City's proposal and eliminate this gift of public funds, seconded by Councilwoman Martin. The motion CARRIED 4-1. Councilman Jones voted NO. Attorney Sugarman questioned items that still need to be ratified and was given an explanation to his concerns. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:25 a.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Kruckmeyer Page -10- Council Special Meeting April 26, 1993