HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-25; City Council; n/a; Report of impasse CCEA negotiationsMEMORANDUM
DATE : June 25, 1980
TO : Mayor and City Council
FROM : City Manager
SUBJECT: REPORT OF IMPASSE
I. Introduction
A. An impasse hearing was conducted at 3:00 p.m., Thursday,
June 19, 1980. The hearing was convened by the City Manager acting
as the Employee Relations Officer for the city, under the authority
of Section 2.48.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
B. The hearing had a dual purpose. First, to determine
an impasse existed as contended by the Carlsbad City Employees'
Association. The second purpose was to seek a method of resolving
the impasse once it was determined an impasse existed.
C. Both parties agreed they were at impasse. CCEA desired
a citizen board to hear the impasse and make a recommendation for
its settlement to the council. The City representatives favored
resolution of the impasse by the City Council. Under the provisions
of the code, in that there was no agreement, the matter was referred
to the City Council for resolution.
II. Background
A. The parties began meeting on February 28, 1980 and
ended on May 21, 1980, having had a total of 12 meetings. During
the course of these sessions each party made five proposals, the
City submitting its last proposal on May 21, 1980 and CCEA submit-
ting its last proposal on May 12, 1980.
III. The Issues
A. During the course of the negotiations several different
issues were proposed, discussed, investigated, and subsequently
dropped. Those issues which existed at the time impasse occurred,
obviously were different for both parties. The description of the
proposals which were on the table being actively considered at the
time of impasse are discussed below.
B. The City's final proposal at time of impasse contained the
following items.
1. A salary increase of 10% to be effective July 1, 1980.
2. Increase in city paid life insurance for miscellaneous
employees to $15,000 per employee from $5,000 per
employee.
3. A guarantee that any miscellaneous employee passing
an open and competitive exam for a miscellaneous
classification receive one interview in the hiring process.
^**s '***Page 2, City Manage^klEMO dated June 25, 1980 ,
4. A rule change permitting accumulation of 60 total
hours of compensation time off and extending the period
for the use of the compensation time off to six months.
5. A rule change clarifying promotional, probation, and
accelerated step increase provisions currently in effect,
6. Retention of the present holiday system—no changes
proposed.
The Association's opposition to the 'management package' proposals
was not specific. Upon termination of the meeting comment was made,
that the proposal was unacceptable and it was believed that an
impasse existed. It is the opinion of the negotiators that the
principal objection to the package proposed was the salary proposal
of 10%. Many of the other administrative items individually could
have been agreed to.
C. The Carlsbad City Employees' Association's last offer was
based upon the following list of items.
1. A request that the City provide a system whereby
personal sick leave periods for each employee would
be exempt from FICA deductions.
2. A provision similar to the City's provision which would
guarantee an interview for miscellaneous employees who
had successfully passed the open and competitive
examination process for miscellaneous positions.
3. A salary proposal of 14% increase across the board,
effective July 1, 1980.
4. Payment of employee and dependent health and medical,
dental, and optical insurance premiums by the City.
5. Change in the provisions for paying longevity pay,
eligibility for longevity to be computed upon total
City service instead 'E1 step service.
6. Establishment of an agency shop.
7. Combination of various classification changes for
miscellaneous employees.
The City's principal objection to those proposals submitted by CCEA
is the 14% salary increase. Other objections include the economic
issues of health and medical, dental, and optical insurance premium
payment, and the agency shop provision which currently is against
the law for general law cities in the State of California.
IV. Impasse Resolution
A. The positions of the two parties regarding a method
of resolving the impasse are widely separated. CCEA contends that
the impasse should not be resolved by the local officials. The
City maintains an opposite view, that the impasse be resolved by the
City Council.
B. City's position: The City is of the opinion that the
impasse which has occurred should be referred to the City Council,
acting under the provisions of Section 2.48.130, to elect one
of the following procedures as the method of impasse resolution.
1. Mediation or conciliation as previously defined in
/*sPage 3, City Manage^LEMO dated June 25, 1980
the code. All mediation proceedings shall be private.
The mediator shall make no public recommendations
or take any public position concerning the issues.
2. A determination by the City Council after hearing
on the merits of the dispute.
3. Another dispute resolving procedures to which the
parties mutually agree which the City Council may
order.
Of these three it is the city's position that the City Council
should determine the case after hearing the merits of the dispute.
The city's principal motivation for recommending this is that the
council constitutes the legislative body of the city, elected by
the residents of the community and directly responsible to those
residents for the administration of city revenues to provide
public services. For the City Council to delegate its responsibility
and in this case permit local residents to hear this case would be
totally irresponsible. Establishing employee compensation and the
conditions of employment for city employees is an integral and
important function of the City Council to which individuals are
elected. To propose any other method of resolution serves to
identify city employees as a special category above and beyond
that of other residents. There is no other group of residents
in the City of Carlsbad who have the option of referring a dispute
or any matter requiring final legislative decision in the city
to an organization other than the City Council. To permit city
employees to do so discriminates against other residents who are
seeking other types of legislative resolutions to their problem.
C. It is CCEA's position that the impasse should be resolved
by a citizens' committee. This proposal is obviously based upon
a close and continued reference to practices followed in the private
sector. It seeks to circumvent the obvious fact that in the public
sector the responsibility for administering city service rests with
the people who were elected by the local residents to do the job.
Whereas, in the private sector the only recourse is provided by
federal law in that the total control is exercised by management.
In private sector collective bargaining the action is arbitrary.
Managers are not elected and gain leverage in negotiations with
employees by the use of economic power. Impasses may be referred
to the National Labor Relations Board whose members are not elected,
but are arbitrarily appointed by government entities. Nowhere in
the entire process is the use of an elected official available to
either party in the private sector. CCEA seeks to compare this
situation with the situation existing in the city. They are not
comparable. Philosophically, politically and economically the
basis for employer/employee relations in the private sector and the
public sector are diametrically different.
V. Recommendation
It is the recommendation of the city staff to the City Council that
the council recognize that an impasse does exist between representa-
tives of the City and those of the Carlsbad City Employees'
Page 4
City Manager MEMO dated June 25, 1980
Association. It is further recommended that the City Council elect
to resolve the impasse. If the Council determines to resolve
the impasse directly, it is management's recommendation that the
Council impose the terms of management's last offer to settle
the impasse.
Recommendation; Adopt the attached resolution which provides for
a 10% salary increase and $15,000 life insurance and direct staff
to prepare documents to implement the remaining items in manage-
ment's last offer.
FA/JNP/VS
Council Action:
6-30-80 Council determined they would resolve the impasse.
Council adopted Resolution No. 6228, authorizing and
directing certain salary compensation, nonsalary compensation
and administrative changes affecting the miscellaneous
employees of the City of Carlsbad.
1| RESOLUTION NO. 6228
23
24
27
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING
3 AND DIRECTING CERTAIN SALARY COMPENSATION,
NONSALARY COMPENSATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE
CHANGES AFFECTING THE MISCELLANEOUS
EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.5
WHEREAS, representatives of the City and the Carlsbad City
6
Employees' Association have failed to reach agreement concerning
the salary and other terms and conditions of employment for
Fiscal Year 1980-81; and
9
WHEREAS, such failure to reach agreement has resulted in an
10
impasse and said impasse having been resolved by the City Council
under the authority of Section 2.48.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal
JL&
Code ;13
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the14
City of Carlsbad, as follows:15
1. That the above recitations are true and correct;16
2. That the City Council authorizes and directs the City
Manager to implement immediately the provisions of the salary18
plan for miscellaneous employees of the city for Fiscal Year 1980-81
JL */
as shown on Exhibits A, B and C attached hereto.20
3. That the City Council authorizes and directs the City21
Manager to implement immediately the provisions for increasing
*<w
city paid life insurance from $5,000 to $15,000 per employee
for Fiscal Year 1980-81.
X X
28 XX
_ 2 -
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an adjourned
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at / regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 30th day of June
1980, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council members Packard, Anear, Lewis, Kulchin and Casler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTE
(SEAL)
RANGE
S EMPLOYEES SALARY SCHEME
JULY 1, 1980 THRU JUNE 30, 1981
BI/WEEKLY
A B D RANGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
423.78
432.67
442.23
451.11
460.68
470.95
480.52
490.76
501.69
512.63
523.57
.534.51
546.12
558.42
570.73
583.03
596.03
609.01
621.99
636.35
650.01
664.35.
679.41
694.44
710. 16
725.87-.
742.28
759.36
776.45
794.21.
811.98
830.45.
849.57
868.71
888.54
909.05
930.22
951.40.
973.29
995.84
1018.39
1042.30
442.23
451. 11
460.68
470.95
480,52
490.76
501.69-
512.63
523.57
534.51
546. 12
558.42
570.73
583.03
596.03
609.01
621.99
636.35
650.01
664.35
679.41
694.44
710. 16
725.87
742.28
759.36
776.45
794.21
811.98
830.45
849.57
868.71
888.54
909.05
930.22
951.40
973.29
995.84
1018.39
1042.30
1066.20
1090.81.
460.68-
470.95
480.52
490.76
501.69
512.63
523.57
534.51
546,12
558.42
570.73
583.03
596.03
609.01
621.99 .
636.35
650.01
664.35
679.41
694.44
710. 16
725.87
742 .28
759.36
776.45
794.21
811.98
830.45
849.57
868.71
888.54
909.05
930.22
951 .40
973.29
995.84
1018.39
1042.30
1066.20
1090.81
1116.78
1142.75
480.52.
490.76
501.69
512.63
523.57-
534.51
546. 12
558.42
570.73-
583.03
596.03
609. 01
621.99
636.35
650.01
664.35
679.41
694.44
710. 16
725.87'
742.28
759.36
776.45
794.21
811.98
830.45
849.57
868.71
888.54
909.05
930 .22
951.40
973.29
995.84
1018.39
1042 .30
1066.20
1090.81
1116.78
1142.75
1169.45-
1196.07
501.68
512.63
523.57
534.51
546.12
558,42
570.73
583,03
596.03
609.01
621.99
636.35
650.01
664.35
679.41
694.44
710.16
725.87
742.28
759.36
776.45
794.21
811.98
830.45
849.57
868.71
888.54
909.05
930.22
951.40
973.29
995.84
1018.39
1042.30
1066.20
1090.81
1116.78
1142.75
1169.45
1196.07
1224.09
1252 .11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 6228
o
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SCHEDULES
JULY 1, 1980 THRU JUNE 30, 1981
BIWEEKLY
RANGE
RANGE
30
36
37
38
42
45
49
588.86
671.00
. 693.00
701.38
774.55
828.22
906.32
615.09
701.38
724.36
733.13
810.09
866.56
948.83
642.71
733.13
757.13
766.95
847.06
906.32
992.76
671.00
766.95
791.98
802.15
886.08
948.83
1038.75
701.38
802.15
828.22
838.76
927.23
992.76
1087.52
30
36
37
38
42
45
49
The above salary schedule applied to the following
classifications:
Assistant Civil Engineer
Associate Civil Engineer
Assistant Planner
Associate Planner
Librarian I, II, and III
EXHIBIT B
Resolution No. 6228
C OXHIBIT c
^Resolution No. 6228
PART TIME EMPLOYEE SALARY SCHEDULE—HOURLY
July 1, 1980 through June 30, 1981
LIBRARY PAGES $3.00 $3.10 $3.20
CLERKS $4.50
REFERENCE $6.50
RECREATION Division of Parks and Recreation Department
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
RECREATION LEADER I 3.19 3.35 3.52 3.70 3.89
RECREATION LEADER II 3.81 4.00 ' 4.20 4.41 4.63
RECREATION SPECIALIST 4.86 5.10 5.36 5.63 5.91
PROCEDURE FOR IMPASSE ITEM
I. MAYOR ASKS FOR REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER ON THE IMPASSE
WITH CARLSBAD CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.
A. REPORT BY CITY MANAGER ON IMPASSE HEARING HELD ON
JUNE 19, 1980.
1. CITY MANAGER FINDS THAT IMPASSE EXISTS.
2. PARTIES COULD NOT AGREE ON HOW TO RESOLVE IMPASSE,
3. IMPASSE REFERRED TO CITY COUNCIL.
II. COUNCIL DETERMINATION ON HOW TO RESOLVE IMPASSE.
A. PRESENTATION BY CCEA ON HOW TO RESOLVE IMPASSE.
B. RECOMMENDATION BY CITY MANAGER ON HOW TO RESOLVE
IMPASSE.
C. CITY COUNCIL VOTES ON HOW TO RESOLVE IMPASSE.
IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO RESOLVE IMPASSE ITSELF:
I. CITY PRESENTATION ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE.
A. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION.
B. COMPARISON OF CITY AND CCEA'S POSITION.
C. COMPARE SETTLEMENTS IN OTHER CITIES,
C. HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM INCREASE ISSUE.
II. CCEA PRESENTATION ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE.
III. CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO DETERMINE SETTLEMENT OF THE IMPASSE.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6228 WHICH PROVIDE A 10% SALARY
INCREASE AND $15,000 LIFE INSURANCE AND DIRECT STAFF
TO PREPARE DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE REMAINING ITEMS
IN MANAGEMENT'S LAST OFFER.
TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK
CARLSBAD CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION/AFSCME LOCAL 978
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
(714)729-1181
May 27, 1980
rO-co!
Vr? '~'^.v~:;-:-. .-;-; (j-jl
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Subject: CCEA/AFSCME - CITY, IMPASSE
Pursuant to Section 2.48.130 of the Municipal Code, as we understand it, CCEA/
AFSCME hereby declares impasse.
We formally request that the resolution of our impasse be resolved by a Board
of Citizens, mutually selected, as permitted by Section 2.48.130 Procedure #3
of the Code.
We further formally request that before you say no to the above request that you
wait for City Council review of the membership's attempt to secure community
support for the Citizens Board.
Since the parties have 35 days remaining prior to the commencement of the new
fiscal year and we agreed last year to settle weeks after the beginning of the
fiscal year we request that your office not respond immediately to deny our
requests.
Attached is our final offer to City management and we are in dispute on those
items appearing alongside asterisk (*) and any others where management has
changed their position from the position taken on the dates listed.
>^\r\•'K. Irving Vy
Business Representative
Council 36, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Enclosure
opeiu139
af1-cio
CCEA/AFSCME L 978
FINAL PROPOSAL TO KAliAGEMZwT
MAY 12, 1980
AGREEMEin? REACHED
Memorandum of Understanding: Mgt. Proposal of U-3-80
Art. 1 Recognition: Mgt. Proposal of ^-3-80
Art. 2 Implementation: Mgt. Proposal of U-3-80
Art. 3 Term: Kgt. Proposal of U-3-80
Art. U Renegotiation: Mgt. Proposal of U-3-80
> •
Art. 5 Retention of Benefits: Mgt. Proposal of lf-3-SO
Art. 9 Overtime and Compensation time off: Mgt. Proposal 'i-3-?JO
Art. Probation and Accelerated Step Increases: I-Tgt. Proposal '
Art. 10 Authorized agents: Mgt. Proposal of U-3-80
Art. 11 Provisions of Lav: Mgt. Proposal of ^-3-80
y- Art. F. I. C. A. Deductions/Sick Leave: Mgt. Proposal lt-23-OO
Jf Art. Advancement: Vgt. Proposal of U-28-80
Art. Classification ?1-.^:
Library
Ec~ea to Lib. Cl II \
Kennedy to Libr. II y as per W^t. Proposal U-16-80
Coatee to Libr. II /
e
CCEA/AFSCME L S~3
FINAL PROPOSAL TO yAKAGEMEKT
MAY 12, 1930
Pace 2
Classification Plan: (continued)
City Eall
Ranos to'Secy I : Mgt Proposal 1»-16-80
f- Stevens to Secy II; "
*• Murphy'to 29 vith Audit r k-21-BQ
Sr. Blcig Inspector, hold for new Bldg. Offi.cal
Parks arid -Fec_
,f Barks Eupv 2nd Position: Mgt. Proposal ^--l6-80
* P ^ R III to 30: " •
Oak Street
Util Syst Gpr II: !•'.&. Proposal 3-12-80
Open Issues
Holidays __ Current Schedule as outlined in M.O.U.
'*-!. Ccr.pennation: 1^5
Reasons: Cost cf Living i.e.: -KL6.9 All Items
+19 • 0 lloufj ing
+16.9 Apparel and Upkeep
+22.7 Transportation
+lo.l Corrjnodities
+5^.3 Energy-
City's Financial Position ie.:Surplus
y(':f, or Kir.c. Arc Alovo CLrl or Outst:i.ndi;if-
CCER/'AFSCME L 978
FINAL PROPOSAL TO MAffAOH-EEKT
MAY 12, 1980
Page 3
5(L 2. Health and Felf are: Crown proposed plan at no cost to Eaployees—
Current Eye Care Plan at no cost to Employees
Dental, $100 Deductable for Einployee/$20Q for Families per Yearmaximal cost to employees
Life Insurance for Misc. E. to equal 1 Yrs Salary
Reasons: Protection for Employees
Simple Question of Dollars in vs. Dollars out with
Insurance Carrier — ll£ Administrave fees ls?t 5 yrs.vs. 50^ last JL2 months
^ 3. Classification Plan
Parks and Rec - 24 Hr Caretater from 25 to 28
• Oak St Tom Colenan to 30E
Oah.St Util Systea Opr III to 30
.•f b, Lcngi Pay
L. 1 + 55 at o'.l'rs of City Employment
L. 2 +2.5 % at 13 Yrs of City Employment
L. 3 + 1.25/^ at 18 Yrs of "
)f. 5. ''Fair Share*1. Representation'
c
SALARY SETTLEMENTS
WITHIN
SAN DIEGO COUNTY^
x"'
CORONADO
ESCONDIDO '
LA MESA ^
LEMON GROVE -
NATIONAL CITYX
OCEANS IDE-
SAN DIEGO CITY"""
SAN DIEGO COUNTY"'
VISTA S
10%
11,75%
9,5%
9,6%
7% 7/1/80. & 3% 1/1/81 (Annual =8.6%)
-7/1/80, 3%-ll/l/80, l%-3/l/81
(Annual = 10.44%)
5% (PART OF A 2 YEAR AGREEMENT
1979 AGREEMENT WAS 13%,)
As of July 1, 1980: 140 Miscellaneous Employees.
On E Step 58 or 41% - 59% will get step increases
this fiscal year.