Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1991-07-25SRCC MINUTES Special) 7/25/91 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1991 AT 7:00 P.M. Special Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Suzanne Golt, Assistant City Manager Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk SPECIAL MEETING RE: IMPASSE ON PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS PROJECT - CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (Pers) - File 7-2 Mayor Mulryan announced that this is a special meeting, called to discuss an impasse, and asked the Council's representative, Austris Rungis of IEDA to start the discussion. Mr. Rungis stated that after his presentation, the Council would be hearing from the three employees' groups which have been engaged with the City over the span of an approximate two-year period in an attempt to arrive at a new set of Personnel Rules and Regulations for the City. Mr. Rungis noted that he had distributed this evening two documents, one of which is the history of the negotiations prepared by the employer's negotiating committee, which briefly summarizes the history which has led to this impasse meeting. Mr. Rungis then explained why the City felt it was compelled to declare an impasse to get the project moving forward. He noted the City is currently operating under two Personnel Rules and Regulations - one set which was adopted in 1956 and covers one part of the City employees (Fire), and another set which was adopted in 1979 which covers the remaining City employees. He stated that all City employees are covered under these two documents. He explained that many changes have transpired since 1956 - and 1979 - in the matters of employer/employee relationships, so the City has undertaken to update these rules and, as provided for under the Meyers/Milias/ Brown Act, where appropriate, to negotiate those areas of the rules which fall within the scope of bargaining. Mr. Rungis reported that in May of 1989 the City contracted with Shannon Associates to provide an updated draft of the Personnel Rules and Regulations. He stated this obviously took some time, the employees were contacted for input, and the consultants also had to review what had transpired in the last decade or so in the area of employ- ment relationships. Mr. Rungis stated that when the draft was completed, copies were sent to all three employee associations and the union, with a cover letter indicating they would like to sit down with the groups and discuss the document. A whole series of meetings was held, during which the parties agreed upon a set of ground rules for negotiations. Among the ground rules were that all of the parties would attempt to move the process forward in an expeditious manner. Another issue agreed upon was that in the event they were not able to arrive at a solution, an impasse could be declared and a mediator would be brought in. Mr. Rungis stated that after these meetings, and after the revision of the draft, the three employee associations sat down with the City to discuss the changes and receive the associations' input on areas where they thought there could be improvement or a different process. Mr. Rungis stated that the City had revised the draft, taking into account what the employee associations had given verbally, and all organizations were provided with the revised draft with a request for their response. Mr. Rungis stated that it was on April 26th that the revision was finished and comments requested by May 15th. He stated no responses were received to these revisions by a certain date, or that some meetings be held for their input. On the last date requested for response, communications were received from all three organizations. The firefighters indicated they had certain dates available, but it might be problematic to meet if the other two groups could not. The other two organizations indicated that, due to various reasons, they were not available to meet. Mr. Rungis stated that, after careful review of where they stood, after more than a year after the process was started, they decided to avail themselves of the process which was agreed to in the ground rules, in order to move the process along. He noted that an impasse could be declared by only one party, according to the rules, and that is why they decided to declare an impasse so the process can move forward. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 7/25/91 page 1 SRCC MINUTES Special) 7/25/91 Page 2 He added that the employer has an obligation to move the process along, since it has been a long time since the City has had an up-to-date set of Personnel Rules and Regulations. He stated there is also a legal right, and that Meyers/Milias/Brown specifies exactly what is to transpire when the parties cannot come to a conclusion, and also says that the employer needs to make a reasonable effort, which Mr. Rungis feels has been done. He stated that with the help of State mediation he hopes this project can be brought to a successful conclusion. He stated the City has done its part in trying to work with the organizations on times and dates for meetings. He requested that the Council review the records which have been submitted, and concur with the employer's negotiating team to move this impasse on to its next logical step. Attorney John Grey spoke on behalf of the Firefighters' Association, stating he has given the Council a document on the history of the Rules and Regulations, pointing out that it is somewhat different than that described by the City. He stated that in 1989 they were informed that the City had contracted with Shannon and Associates of Sacramento to prepare a draft of new Rules and Regulations. They were asked if they were interested in participating, and on June 27th their representative met with a representative of Shannon & Associates, who indicated the Firefighters' Association was to provide them with written comments if they wanted to be a participatory part of the process. He stated that on July 18th, within the time frame set by Shannon, he had written Shannon on behalf of the Firefighters' Association, pointing out the areas with which they were concerned and that they would like to meet and confer on the issues. Mr. Grey stated he never received a response to that letter. He stated the next response received was on June 15, 1990, at 4:55 in the evening, when Mr. Hufford, the President of the Firefighters' Association, was handed a document from Daryl Chandler, indicating that the City was prepared to meet on the final draft of the Rules and Regulations which had been prepared by Shannon & Associates. The dates were set, the Firefighters' Association had never been contacted, and Mr. Hufford was told that if we were interested in participating in the process we should respond by 5:00 P.M. on June 15th. He stated that gave them five minutes to respond to the proposal. Mr. Grey stated they did contact City Hall by phone and he wrote a letter to the City on June 18th indicating that his organization did wish to meet and confer with them. He stated that, subsequently, they did meet on July 17th, with all three groups and the City. MAPE indicated that they had a problem and were at a contract impasse. After much discussion the meeting was adjourned, after agreeing they would wait and see how the MAPE negotiations progressed, since they could not conduct two sets of negotiations at the same time. He stated they met again in September, when the City thought there was a problem with the negotiating process, and that it was not moving along because MAPE was still at impasse. He reported that Police and Fire met with MAPE, and it was those three groups who agreed to go to the bargaining table to discuss ground rules only, while MAPE was at impasse. Mr. Grey stated they wanted to help the process move along, and MAPE agreed to work on the ground rules. At that time, Fire had a problem, having been told their team could not be present. Therefore, they had to have a separate set of negotiations which took place in October, to set up how they were going to meet. He said they agreed that, although the Meyers/Milias/Brown Act said that they were able to have a reasonable number of people off duty from their work time, they would make their team available to respond to call, because there was a team already assembled which had been working on the project. He stated they finally got that settled, and did get back to the table in November. He stated that on November 19th they had a set of ground rules, which stated clearly that they would meet at mutually agreeable times and places. He said Fire had agreed with the other groups and the City that it was essential that all groups meet together; otherwise they would be working at cross-purposes. He stated they continued to meet at each scheduled meeting date, unless there was a distinct conflict by one group of the City, until March 12th, at which time the City and the groups concluded their discussions of the original draft of the Rules and Regulations from Shannon. Mr. Grey pointed out that during these negotiations the City's representative acknowledged that a good portion of Shannon's proposed rules were items which belonged, or would be more appropriately addressed, in the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). Mr. Grey said they had pointed that out as they went along, and it had been the position of all groups that the MOU should deal with a number of these items, such as grievance procedures and lay-offs. He stated they had spent a lot of hours discussing that issue. Mr. Grey added that thereafter no meetings were scheduled, but they did schedule time for all three groups, as well as members of the City Council, to participate in a system of win/win bargaining training which was suggested by the City as a means of trying to improve the labor relations process. He stated no further meetings SRCC MINUTES (Special) 7/25/91 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES -',Special) 7/25/91 Page 3 were set, and they heard no word about the Rules, until April 28th when the April 26th memo was delivered, which had with it the City's revised draft of the Rules and Regulations and two other documents. One document set forth the changes the City had made and, most importantly, a document which was entitled "Items That May Also be Appropriately Placed in the Standard Memorandum of Understanding". He stated that they, as a group, took that to their negotiating team, which is a separate group of people, and told them to put those items into the MOU. He stated it was their assumption that when they finished the negotiations for the MOU, these items would have been addressed and they would then be in a position to finish the Rules and Regulations. He stated that the City's next response was that they wanted a written response and the Firefighters told the City they did not want to negotiate in writing. He added that their negotiations had been face-to-face and had been with all three groups so there would be input from all three groups and there would not be a situation where there would be misunderstandings. He questioned whether it would be appropriate to be discussing a given Rule, when it would be discussed in negotiations as part of a MOU. He stated there was no way of knowing what was going to remain in the Rules and Regulations because of the MOU issue. He stated that they want that issue finished, and when it is, they are ready to meet. He stated if the City wanted to meet with all three groups as they went along, they were willing to do that. The Police were unavailable because some members of their negotiating team are also members of their bargaining team for the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Grey stated that the problem is not a failure to meet and confer or a failure to want to get this item concluded, but is a failure to conclude the negotiating process. He stated if that process was concluded they are ready to meet tomorrow, to conclude the Rules and Regulations, but they do not see how that can be done when the work they would be doing could be automatically superseded by the results of a meet and confer process for a new contract. He noted that two of the groups are conducting their negotiations right now. He stated they have addressed their issues in their proposals to the City, and have prepared specific items which are ready to go onto the table. Mr. Grey stated that the two-year process which the City mentioned was one that Fire was not involved in. They had made their response, but had never heard. He stated they are willing to meet, and the Fire is ready to go, to meet, and finish the process. He said if the groups could sit down and meet, with a new MOU, then this could be finished. Attorney Michael Rains, representing the Police Association, referred to a letter presented to the City Council this evening, and asked that the Council read it before they make a decision on the matter before them. He stated that although he regards Austris Rungis very highly, he disagrees with him on this subject. He stated he does not agree with Mr. Rungis' interpretation of the impasse process, and that in this instance it does not apply. He stated there has to be objective indecision for the declaration of impasse, and the Council tonight should weigh the evidence as to whether there is sufficient cause for a declaration of impasse. He noted it has been urged by the City, and not by the associations. He stated that it is inappropriate in this instance, and compared this impasse to the events which lead up to a labor negotiations impasse. He added that he was surprised that Rules and Regulations which are ten years old are suddenly at impasse. He stated that, while Mr. Rungis stated they have been working on these Rules and Regulations for two years, that is not true, and that Resolution 7656, which was adopted by the Council on December 7, 1987, Article 18 of that says the City shall continue to meet and confer with representatives of the Associations considering modification of the Personnel Rules and Regulations, with the intention of resolving said issues. He said that was the commitment four years ago, and the City still does not have Personnel Rules and Regulations. He stated the lethargic approach previously exhibited by City officials leads him to believe that there must be something else going on, other than that which was stated to the Council. He stated another thing which surprised him was that Harold Hutchinson, who is the Chairman of the Police committee, had communicated with Daryl Chandler on May 16th and had told him that the Police were in collective bargaining for a contract and because of that, he did not believe the Police would be able to continue their commitment to the Personnel Rules because they were simply spread too thin. He said there was neither response nor objection, so Mr. Hutchinson followed up with a June 28th letter confirming his conversation of May 16th, and there was no response to this written communication. Then, on July 5th he received a letter stating there was an impasse. He stated he feels Mr. Rungis could have called and given prior notice. He stated that impasse required communication before you get to that point. He noted that last year when MAPE was at impasse in their labor negotiations, the Personnel Rules and Regulations were put on hold. Mr. Rains requested that the City Council make a declaration that they are not at impasse. He stated if the Police Association can get to the table and conclude negotiations, they will get to the Personnel Rules and Regulations. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 7/25/91 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES kSpecial) 7/25/91 Page 4 Beth Winters, representing members of SEIU Local 949, which is the Marin Association of Public Employees (MAPE), stated that she concurs with everything which has been said previously. She stated it is very regrettable that the City has thrown the gauntlet like this. She stated it was just about a year ago that she addressed the Council on the impasse in their negotiations. She said there were some very adversarial meetings on the Rules and Regulations, but she is pleased to report that in the process that they have been meeting, things have moved along very well and they were able to climb out of the abyss of mis-trust which existed among the employee organizations since the City unilaterally enforced the Rules in 1979. She said they had finally come to a place where there was cooperation, and back and forth discussions, and it seems as if it was on its way. Ms. Winters stated that in her letter to Daryl Chandler responding to why MAPE could not meet, she indicated that their priority is to complete a comprehensive MOU negotiations, part of what was agreed to when we signed off last September. She stated that part of the agreement was to spend time working on a comprehensive MOU. She stated that for a City of this size it is remarkable that all three groups just have a salary ordinance and not a comprehensive MOU which would encompass the Rules and Regulations. She stated that even small towns have them. She confirmed what the previous speakers had stated regarding the MOU containing issues which are presently in the Rules and Regulations. She stated it makes sense to complete their negotiations first, because the contract, in fact, overrules the Rules and Regulations and, in the case of the three unions, even though we are all negotiating the Rules and Regulations together, anything they negotiate which is different, would supersede the Rules and Regulations. She said when she presented that issue to the City, she was told that they still need the Rules and Regulations. She stated they are now being told they are not meeting their responsibilities because they are not meeting on the Rules and Regulations. She said MAPE's first obligation is to their members. She said they need to complete their negotiations. They are not refusing to meet, but it is a matter of timeliness. Mayor Mulryan announced that the format to be followed is that the Council will not make a decision tonight, but will discuss this in closed session and will announce their decision at the next City Council meeting on August 5, 1991. Councilmember Shippey noted that Mr. Rains had said the set of Regulations in 1979 were outdated by 1988, and asked for an explanation. Mr. Rains responded that the field of personnel regulations evolves very quickly and dramatically. He said he could probably cite eight or ten sections which are outdated. He cited the case of Skelly vs. the Personnel Board in 1975 which involved discipline. Mayor Mulryan thanked everyone who participated for their presentations. He then adjourned the meeting. JEANNF 0 CINI�ityC APPROVED ON THIS DAY OF , 1991 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 7/25/91 Page 4