05/23/2005 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Special Council Minutes of 5/23/2005 minimum staffing levels for callbacks. That is something that the city never desired to do at the bargaining table, yet a Fire Chief, without authority or direction from the Mayor, Safety Director or City Council, went ahead and did it. The arbitrator has come back and said that it was okay for the Fire Chief to do it. He does not believe it was okay for the Fire Chief to do so. He believes the arbitrator's award is not drawing its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. It's drawing its essence from an agreement that was not authorized to be entered into. The second one involves the two levels of overtime rates for the Fire Department. In fact finding with the Fire Department two collective bargaining cycles ago, in exchange for the union receiving a reduced work week from 51.7 hours to 50.4 hours, the city got back in return atwo-level overtime rate structure in which only emergency holdovers and emergency call-ins would be paid at the 40 hour rate, which is the more expensive rate, and the remainder would be paid at the new 50.4 hour rate. That is what was negotiated. But unbeknownst to people at the policy level in city management, the union and the Fire Chief again sat down and, in his judgment, bargained away what the city had won at fact finding by indicating that almost all overtime is to be paid at the 40 hour rate by calling shift manning emergency call in. These are both are very serious management rights issues, particularly the first one regarding minimum staffing for call back. The second one, he believes, was an interference with City Council's authority to finally approve the collective bargaining agreement. Because, in that instance, the fact finder had come back with his award on this issue in the city's favor. He had made a presentation to Council in which he explained the city had achieved some success in fact finding because, even though the hours were reduced to 50.4, there was a new two-level overtime rate that was going to save overtime. As he was telling that to City Council, the Fire Chief and the union reps had worked a deal bargaining that away. The union knew about it, and when the union voted to approve the contract, they knew it was going to be implemented in this fashion but the City Council didn't. He does take it very seriously that these awards are typically final and binding and the parties should live by them, in these instances because of the unique facts and because of the very serious implications to the city in walking away from these management rights issues, he highly recommends that this Council authorize him to file in each case a motion to vacate the arbitration award. He does not promise that it's going to be successful. It's very difficult to take an appeal from these arbitration awards, but he thinks it's the responsible thing to do. It also protects the city. It keeps the issue open so at least city management can continue to sit down and talk with the fire fighters and perhaps and work it out. Councilman Dailey said he appreciated Mr. Dubelko's explanation and asked whether Council will have to appropriate mare money to pursue this. Law Director Dubelko said no as he will do it in-house. Councilman Miller asked for clarification about the issue of arbitration being binding. Was it represented to the fire fighters or any other parties that the ruling of the arbitration would be binding upon the city? Law Director Dubelko said no and explained the SERB statute, Chapter 4117, provides for arbitration being the last step in a grievance process and indicates that it's final and binding. However, either party to any arbitration award is entitled to move to vacate if they believe it's been procured by fraud, corruption or that 2