Loading...
02-22-1989 - Special ---- 1 ,..,. ...... CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER SPECIAL MEETING WITH MERIT BOARD FEBRUARY 22, 1989 MINUTES Mayor David Mitchum called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. in the Community Center. He stated the purpose was to meet with the Merit Board, at their request, to discuss the role of the Merit Board in the Council-Manager form of government. ROLL CALL (Council) Mayor David Mitchum Councilman Dan Hatfield Councilwoman Gigi Bennington Councilman Russell Gold Councilman Thomas Fish Present Present Present Present Present City Attorney Jose 'B. Alvarez City Manager William Powers Acting City Clerk S. Wadsworth Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present Present Present Present ROLL CALL (Merit Board) Karen Grasberger Keith Denton Harry Jones Sherry Young Marvin Owens Present Excused Present Arrived Later Present Mayor Mitchum recessed the meeting at 7:03 P.M. to await the arrival of Mrs. Young, per the request of Board Chairman Harry Jones. Mrs. Young arrived at 7:15 P.M. Mayor Mitchum called the recessed meeting back to order at 7:16 P.M. Mayor Mitchum welcomed Marvin Owens to the Merit Board. Harry Jones, Merit Board Chairman, thanked Council for allowing the recess as their one member had an exam that evening. He stated they requested the meeting to hear Council's ideas of their responsibilities under the new form of govern- ment. He said he read the Code and doesn't see where any of their duties or responsibilities would conflict with the new form of government. He suggested they keep it as it is. Mr. Powers stated that he sees a potential problem in the fact that the Merit Board was established by Charter with certain functions included but they negotiated a labor agreement to cover grievance procedures. He added that it could possibly generate an unfair labor practice charge. He suggested they look at the ordinance that established it and spell out the grievance procedure to be in accordance with negotiated labor agreements to resolve the problem. He pointed out they have arbitration procedures set out under the labor contracts. He stated that if they are in a union covered position, then those items apply and they cannot go back and ask to utilize the Merit Board to settle their grievance. He again suggested they eliminate these conflicts with a revision to the ordinance. He pointed out that it's clear if you have a labor agreement covering an item, that labor agreement will prevail because that is the document under which those people are controlled for griev- ances. He suggested the Council charge the City Attorney, along with the Manager, to review the ordinance that spells out the specifics of the duties as delineated in the Charter so these conflicts can be resolved. Mr. Jones pointed out that an employee who doesn't belong to the union has no right to the union's process. He noted that about 50% are union members and those not in the union need to be looked after also. Mr. Powers stated that it doesn't matter if they are dues paying member, if that position is covered by the labor agreement, the procedures will apply. He added that only the depart- ment heads are exempt. Mr. Jones asked if the man who is non-union of his own choice has rights as well as the union member. Mr. Powers replied that he chooses not to pay dues to the union but it does not exempt him from that union contract and he has to follow the same procedure because it's recognized by the union. ~ ... ....", Mr. Owens stated that in Florida under the right to work law, they get all the benefits of the union as a non-union member in a municipality. He stated that they can have an employee's grievance against his super- visor and the employee doesn't want to go to upper management. He pointed out that some cities have civil service boards or employee relations boards and he has the choice where he works to take it to the boards. He suggested that if there are discrepancies in the contract and what the Merit Board is set up to do, they should try to resolve it, but not abolish the Board. Mayor Mitchum stated there's no intention to abolish the Board. Ms. Grasberger stated she'd like members of the staff to be able to come to them with problems and feel they were being heard and make recommendations back to the City Manager and Council. Mrs. Young agreed that's what is needed, and the employees can come to the Merit Board but they can't go to both, only one or the other. Councilman Hatfield clarified that non-union employees do have the rights the same as union employees and it's to their benefit to negotiate any problems. Councilman Fish stated he wanted to clear up misconceptions and head off any problems with different grievance procedures where there may be overlapping coverage between the Merit Board and those delineated in the union contracts. He supported the Manager's assessment that they shouldn't have two grievance procedures to go through the union and then go to the Merit Board, or the other way around. He pointed out that if that process is set up in the con- tracts, that's the process that should be followed because it's the governing contract for the employees. He commended the Board for their sense of public service and their dedication. Councilman Gold stated that a lot of this has surfaced from rumors going around that the City Manager was attempting to get rid of some of the boards and some of the duties overlapping the Merit Board and the Manager. He said he encouraged anyone to go to the City Manager and get these problems resolved before they get blown out of proportion like some were the last couple of months. Councilwoman Bennington pointed out that the personnel manual and union con- tract have the same grievance procedure up to step 4 and then the union con- tract says to go to arbitration and the personnel manual says to go before the Merit Board with a written notice. Mr. Jones agreed the wording should be the same. Councilwoman Bennington asked if the union recognizes the grievance pro- cedure outlined in the personnel manual, and if the City Manager is assumed to be the Personnel Officer. Mr. Powers replied yes. Councilwoman Bennington noted that when the original ordinance was drawn up they didn't have these and they need to know if they're going to hear grievances. She said she feels they need a Merit Board and they have a merit system and the employees need a way to appeal a grievance. She asked which one they would follow. Mr. Jones read an excerpt from the PEA contract regarding pursuing a right of remedy. He suggested this might be handled by saying a union employee might have either/or, and if he goes by union procedures, it goes to arbitration, and if he wants to go through the Merit Board, than he can do that. Mr. Powers suggested Council direct the City Attorney and Manager to review these inconsistencies and provide Council with an amended ordinance to correct the problem. Ms. Grasberger stated she's interested in employee safety and other concerns, not just grievances. Mr. Jones agreed the Board hasn't been used for the services it could be used for and he feels they can handle any of the responsi- bilities set forth in the duties and functions of the Merit Board. He suggested he be a part of the meeting on the ordinance and be a part of the preliminary work. Councilman Hatfield suggested the draft preliminary ordinance be sent to the Board to review. Mayor Mitchum suggested it be looked into and an ordinance be brought back and given to the Merit Board and go from there. Councilman Hatfield so moved. Councilman Gold seconded the motion. -2- Council Special Meeting with Merit Board February 22, 1989 Minutes ~ ...... Councilwoman Bennington asked what they'd do in the meantime if an employee has a grievance or problem. Mr. Powers replied he'd call PERC the next morning and get a ruling, but everyplace he's worked that has dealt with union agreements, the rule was that until a position is pulled out from under it, it has the benefits, and the employee has the choice whether he wants to pay dues, but if it's a union covered position, then the contract applies. Councilwoman Bennington asked if they'll update the present ordinance and Mayor Mitchum replied that's the intent. Ms. Grasberger aksed where their power lies if in the interim there were a problem or concern of an employee. City Attorney Alvarez premised his comments with a disclaimer that he's not familiar with the specific issues, but the issue on the agenda is the role of the Merit Board under the Council-Manager form of government. He explained the types of government and the way the Council-Manager form of government is set up. He stated the the City Manager is the Chief Executive Officer of the City and is charged with hiring, firing, and disciplining of employees. He reviewed a case law and said there's an election of remedies and an employee can choose one avenue of appeal and he cannot come back and choose another. He pointed out that existence of the Board is in the Charter and was voted on and nobody is taking issue with the existence of the Board as an entity charged with the responsibilities it has under the Charter. He pointed out that the duties and functions were established by ordinance which was adopted in 1981, and in 1988 a Council-Manager form of government was adopted and the powers and duties of the Manager were set forth in an ordinance. He added that has to exist also because of the Charter, which was amended. He said there may be areas of conflict in the two ordinances, but when you have two pieces of legislation, the last one in time takes precedence. He added that he doesn't see a situation where the employees rights might be taken away but there may be some conflicts that may be changed to resolve it, and he'll not resolve it, but will point them out. Councilwoman Bennington read from section 17 of the ordinance that set up the City Manager regarding consistencies with the Charter. City Attorney Alvarez clarified that he's referring to inconsistencies with the two ordinances, not the Charter, and they need to determine the question of conflict with the two ordinances. He explained the Manager is responsible to Council to see Council directions and policies are implemented but he has his own areas of administrative matters. He said the new ordinance should address those other areas that the Board can beinvolvedin, such as with safety. He clarified that if the employee chooses a grievance procedure, then it's his right to use it and their duty to hear it. Ms. Grasberger asked about the ensuing month if an employee comes to them. City Attorney Alvarez replied to go by 81-0-16 and the Charter. Motion that it be looked into and an ordinance be brought back and given to the Merit Board and go from there CARRIED 5-0. Mr. Jones asked if the Merit Board could handle the screening of board applicants since the Screening Committee was abolished. After brief comments, the con- census was that Council would handle the board applications. Councilman Fish urged the Board to update their by-laws. Mr. Jones replied it's on their agenda. Mayor Mitchum requested a motion to adjourn. Councilman Fish so moved. Councilman Hatfield seconded the motion. Minutes submitted by: Lura Sue Koser Approved this~day of ~~. ~/ -3- Council Special Meeting with Merit Board February 22, 1989 Minutes