04/05/2005 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:./ ~ Council Minutes 4!5/2Q05 will ask that the Clerk check it out. If he did err, he apologies. As to the merits of the legislation, he defers to the Law Director. Law Director Dubelko said that the statement that the city paid the administrators their sick leave and didn't do the same for bazgaining unit employees is not correct. First of all, it was RTA that paid the administrators pursuant to the operating agreement. Any and all bazgaining unit employees who retired prior to the transfer of the line were in fact paid by the city. The legislation (Ordinance 2005-23) involves individuals who did not retire prior to the time that the city surrendered operation of the line. There were no administrators subsequent to that point in time that were being paid sick leave. So administrators and bazgaining unit employees were treated the same. Those who retired before March 31 were paid their sick leave in full. The city's bargaining team raised this issue at the negotiating table. They did everything they could to persuade RTA to take on obligations as if individuals continued to be North Olmsted employees for purposes of retirements, sick leave, etc. However, RTA was not willing to voluntarily take on that obligation. The negotiating team did not have any leverage, short of not agreeing, to impel RTA to take on an obligation that they were not required, as they viewed the law, to take on. AFSCME Ohio Council 8, Local 3517 then came to the city and asked the city to attempt to resolve this matter. In his opinion, under the collective bargaining agreement, the city did not have an obligation to make these payments to employees after they were no longer North Olmsted employees. There was a difference of opinion. Ohio Council 8 believed that there was some potential obligation up until the time that the collective bargaining agreement expired. The difference of opinion was negotiated in good faith with the union representative. The agreement was submitted to the local union membership, and it was approved-by a close vote, but it was approved. It was then submitted to City Council and some issues were brought up by City Council on whether or not to approve, but it was approved. He thinks on the merits of it, it was something that followed a very defined process, and thinks that both sides acted in good faith. There was certainly no intent, and he does not think any of the three affected employees should consider it to have been an insult what the city did, because from his viewpoint he doesn't know that the city had any legal obligation to do what it did. He thinks it was a fair process on both sides and there was a result that both sides approved. It's what people should live with and appreciate that both sides attempted to deal fairly and not to revisit it. Charles Dial, 27959 Gardenia, congratulated Mayor O'Grady and said he was stating publicly that he wants to give the Mayor the support to which he is entitled and needs to get the job done. In some respects, he has inherited some very difficult stuff. He wants to see the Mayor and the city succeed. Joe Koehler, 4598 Vernon Drive, came to a Council meeting last September to complain because the Police Dept. gave tickets out to cars parked on the cut-de-sac where the residents have been parking for 20 years. It is not a normal cut-de-sac, it's a big one and there is room to park cars. Now six months later, he got a letter from the Police Dept. saying it is legal to pazk on the cut-de-sac. What happens to the two citizens who got tickets? He feels in September the residents should have received warnings that there was a change. One of the residents was there when the officer was writing the tickets and was not allowed to move his car. 12