Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3875_CCv0001.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 3875 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS TAKING LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO RESOLVE THE IMPASSE IN THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDLANDS AND THE REDLANDS PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS , LOCAL NO . 1354 , IAAF , AFL-CIO WHEREAS , the City of Redlands ("City" ) , pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and the reasonable rules and regulations for the administration of employer-employee relations adopted by the City following good faith consulta- tion with representatives of employee organizations repre- senting employees in the City , and set forth in the City of Redlands Resolution No . 2786 (hereinafter referred to as "the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution" ) , has met and conferred in good faith with the Redlands Professional Fire Fighters , Local No . 1354 , IAFF , AFL-CIO (RPFF) , the recog- nized employee organization representing employees in the Fire Fighters ' Unit , on matters relating to employment conditions and employer- employee relations , including wages , hours , and other terms and conditions of employment ; and WHEREAS , RPFF submitted a partial proposal to the City for meeting and conferring , dated April 19 , 1982 , and j attached hereto as Exhibit "A" ; and WHEREAS , on May 11 , 1982 , representations of the City and RPFF held their first meet and confer session; and WHEREAS , at that meet and confer session of May 11 , 1982 , and at a subsequent meeting on May 19 , 1982 , RPFF presented a more detailed initial proposal to the City . It included the following: 1 . A twelve percent wage increase ; 2 . Six additional vacation shifts for all unit employees ; 3 . All accrued sick leave days paid upon retire- ment or, in the alternative , to be applied to a retiree ' s medical insurance premiums ; 4. A cafeteria plan for health, dental and vision coverage , with employee and dependent premiums paid by the City; 5 . City to provide all uniforms and replacements (proposed in exchange for current $50 . 00/year clothing allowance) ; 6 . Additional pay for working out of classifica- tion; 7 . Increase in the differential between a Captain' s pay and an Engineer' s pay from twelve and one-half percent to seventeen and one-half percent ; 8 . A long-term disability plan paid for by the City; and WHEREAS , RPFF stated it had no non-economic or no cost proposals ; and WHEREAS , a cost analysis prepared by City staff indicates that the cost of RPFF ' s initial proposals could cost the City in excess of $300,000 . 00 in increased costs for Fire Fighter' s compensation; and -2- WHEREAS , in addition to the proposal received from RPFF, the City received proposals from two other employee organizations representing employees of the City. The cost of these proposals , when added to the cost of proposals received from RPFF, brought the total cost to the City of the proposals received from the three employee organizations representing City employees to an amount well in excess of $1 ,000 ,000 . 00 ; and WHEREAS , based upon its projections , the City anticipated that expenses from its General Fund would exceed income into the General Fund by several hundred thousand dollars , in both fiscal year 1981-82 and fiscal year 1982-83 . Numerous day-to-day City expenses , including many employee salaries and benefits are paid from the General Fund. While the City has other funds in addition to the General Fund, these other funds are restricted by law or policy for speci- fic purposes ; and WHEREAS , for many years the City Council of the City of Redlands maintained a policy of holding the General Fund Reserve Account to a level of no less than ten percent of the General Fund budget . Among other reasons , this fund was held in reserve to make up shortfalls in the General Fund; and WHEREAS , the consequence of transferring funds from the General Fund Reserve Account to make up shortfalls in the General Fund was the depletion of the General Fund Reserve Account to a level well below ten percent of the -3- General Fund budget , the figure traditionally deemed prudent and responsible by the City Council; and WHEREAS , the City has been experiencing a decrease in revenues received from the State of California and other sources , as a result of Proposition 13 and other similar measures , and has been facing the very real possibility that further cuts in revenue received from the State will be made; and WHEREAS , the City recognized that prudent and responsible fiscal management was essential to protect existing reserves and restricted funds , as it had become apparent that restoring these reserves and restricted funds would be most difficult in the foreseeable future under the financial circumstances that the City was facing; and WHEREAS , the City was forced to make some very difficult decisions to protect and maintain its longstanding fiscally secure condition; and WHEREAS , upon careful consideration of its fiscal condition and the best ways to prevent premature deteriora- tion of that condition while maintaining the desired level of services to its citizens , the City recognized that a major cost savings to the City could be realized in the 1982-83 fiscal year budget by granting no increases in employee wages and benefits ; and WHEREAS , there were three primary factors in the City' s decision to propose no increases in employee wages and benefits for the 1982-83 fiscal year: -4- (a) The bleak fiscal circumstances facing the City , including the prospect that these circumstances were likely to become worse before becoming better; (b) The fact that the City' s existing employee compensation package , including the one applicable to Fire Fighters , is fair and competitive. As the result of regular and generous increases in wages and benefits granted by the City to employees in past meet and confer sessions , City employees , including Fire Fighters , presently receive an attractive and competitive compensation package , including yearly step increases within their salary ranges . These yearly step increases were not affected by the City ' s deci- sion to hold the line on employee wages and benefits ; and (c) The City ' s existing employee compensation package enables the City to recruit and retain well-qualified employees , including Fire Fighters . Due to the regular and generous increases in employee compensation granted by the City over the past several years , the City regularly receives applications from more well-qualified individuals than it can actually employ , and of the little turnover in employees the City experiences , nose is attributed to substandard employee compensation; and WHEREAS , on May 11 , 1982 , City representatives responded to RPFF' s proposals by explaining the City' s worsening financial problems , and informed RPFF that , in the absence of significant improvement in the City ' s financial condition, the City believed it to be in the City ' s long-term -5- I best interest not to grant an increase in employee wages and benefits for fiscal year 1982-83 . The City noted that the failure to act prudently and responsibly now, in the face of current and potentially greater economic troubles , would only hasten the deterioration of the City ' s fiscal security, which could lead to layoffs , reduction in pay and hours , and other undesirable effects that the City hoped to avoid. The City offered to continue to meet with representatives of RPFF to further explain its fiscal policies and its reasons for rejecting RPFF ' s proposals for an increase in employee wages and benefits , and agreed to continue to moniter its financial situation for improvement in relation to RPFF' s proposals . The City also agreed to entertain any additional no cost proposals , so-called non-economic items , presented by RPFF, and to discuss a no-cost redistribution of existing employee compensation, if RPFF so desired; and WHEREAS , City and RPFF continued to meet and. confer, holding meetings on the following dates during 1982 : May 18 , May 25 and June 8 ; and WHEREAS , on each occasion, City representatives informed RPFF representatives that the City ' s financial condition had not changed in such a way that the City was in a position to change its no increase in employee compensa- tion posture; and WHEREAS , RPFF' s response was generally to the effect that the City had sufficient funds to give an increase in pay and benefits to the Fire Fighters if it would modify -6- its fiscal policies concerning reserve and restricted funds , and that if the City ever became "broke" or insolvent , the Fire Fighters would then be willing to forego increases in compensation; and WHEREAS , the City' s representative responded that , by law, fiscal policy was the responsibility of the City Council , and that the City Council had traditionally main- tained and followed conservative and prudent fiscal policies to keep the City in a stable and secure financial condition. RPFF was repeatedly informed that the City Council intended to continue to follow prudent and responsible fiscal policies , to maintain what it considered to be a reasonable level of financial security , and that for the City to wait until it was "broke" or insolvent before taking measures to maintain fiscal security would be imprudent and irresponsible; and WHEREAS , on July 9 , 1982 , the City Council of the City of Redlands adopted the fiscal year 1982-83 budget ; and WHEREAS , in order to balance that budget , the City Council most reluctantly modified some of its long-standing fiscal policies , including: (a) Reduction of its General Fund Reserve Account factor from no less than ten percent of the General Fund budget to no less than seven percent of the General Fund budget ; (b ) Reduction of its contractually established industrial development restricted fund by almost $300 ,000 . 00; and -7- (c) Elimination of regular contributions to its restricted self-insurance fund, which resulted in said fund indefinitely falling short of the desired level recommended to the City by its expert advisor on insurance matters ; and WHEREAS , RPFF and City representatives met again on July 26 , 1982 , at the request of RPFF . At that meeting, RPFF representatives asserted that , in light of the City' s modification of previously long-standing fiscal policies in the 1982-83 Budget , there was no reason that the City could not further modify its fiscal policies to accommodate the Association' s proposals . The City representatives pointed out to RPFF ' s representative that the City had reluctantly modified its traditional fiscal policies only to attempt to achieve a balanced budget ; and WHEREAS , at the July 22 , 1982 meeting, RPFF sub- mitted the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "B , " which included substantial increases in wages , benefits and other terms and conditions of employment ; and WHEREAS , at the July 26 , 1982 meeting, RPFF repre- sentatives were advised by the City representative that the City would probably not be receptive to the RPFF proposal, since it would probably push the City further towards the brink of financial crisis and reiterated that the City had recently modified its fiscal policy and reduced reserve and restricted funds very reluctantly , and only to balance the budget ; and _8� WHEREAS , at each of the aforementioned meet and confer sessions between RPFF and City representatives , City representatives offered to entertain so- called non-economic , no cost proposals from RPFF, but RPFF made no such proposals ; and WHEREAS , City representatives concluded that the possibility of the settlement by direct discussion had been exhausted and that the City and RPFF had reached a deadlock and their meeting and conferring in good faith on differ- ences on matters to be included in a Memorandum of Under- standing, and concerning matters upon which they are required to meet and confer, remained so substantial and prolonged that further meeting and conferring would be futile ; and WHEREAS , in accordance with Section 13 of the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution, the City initiated impasse procedures by filing with RPFF a written request , dated August 4, 1982 , for an impasse meeting, together with a statement of its position on all disputed issues ; and WHEREAS , RPFF disputed that an impasse existed; and WHEREAS , an impasse meeting was duly held, at which the issues remaining in dispute from the meet and confer process were identified, and the positions of the parties were reviewed in a final effort to resolve the disputed issues ; and WHEREAS , at the impasse meeting, RPFF made what it characterized as its final offer in which it proposed: -9- foregoing an increase in compensation during the 1982-83 fiscal year, in return for a three-year Memorandum of Under- standing which would include increase in salaries for the 1983-84 and 1984-85 fiscal years based upon a cost of living index formula; increases in department manning; and, improve- ments in the Fire Fighters pension plan; and WHEREAS , the City deemed it prudent and responsible to reject RPFF ' s proposal for a multi-year agreement because of the inability to accurately project how much the cost of living might increase over the next two fiscal years and what condition State or City finances will be in two years ; and WHEREAS , a RPFF spokesman later modified the proposal to include a provision that the cost of living wage adjustment provision be a permanent fixture between the City and RPFF , and that it remain in effect beyond the term of the three-year Memorandum of Understanding originally pro- posed by RPFF ; and WHEREAS , the uncertanties associated with RPFF' s originally stated final offer were even greater insofar as its modified final offer are concerned, the City deemed it in its best interest to also reject RPFF ' s second final offer; and WHEREAS , the disputed issues were not resolved at the impasse meeting; and - 10- WHEREAS , RPFF representatives declined to discuss ways of resolving the impasse , indicating that the existence of an impasse prevented them from doing so ; and WHEREAS , Section 13 of the Employer-Employee Rela- tions Resolution provides that if the parties are unable to resolve an impasse at the impasse meeting, and are unable to mutually select a specific procedure to which the dispute shall be submitted, the matter shall be referred to the City Council ; and WHEREAS , RPFF was informed that , before the matter was referred to the City Council , it would have an oppor- tunity to appear before the City Council and make a direct presentation on its full position concerning the impasse, but declined to do so ; and WHEREAS , before the City Council took any action to resolve the impasse , the City learned through unofficial sources that the City might receive a refund, or a reduction in pension contribution rates from the public Employees Retirement System ("PERS" ) as a result of Senate Bill No . 46 of the 1982 legislative session; and WHEREAS , the City recognized that the anticipated benefits of Senate Bill No . 46 could create a framework for settlement of the impasse existing between it and the three employee organizations representing City employees , but concluded that it would be imprudent to make a firm proposal or enter into an agreement with the three employee organiza- tions on the basis of benefits derived from Senate Bill - ll- i No . 46 until official notification concerning those benefits had been received from PERS ; and WHEREAS , the City directed its representative to return to each of the employee organizations and inform them that the City was reconsidering its no increase position in light of the development related to Senate Bill No . 46 ; and WHEREAS , on November 16 , 1982 , City and RPFF representatives met to discuss the possibility of settlement of the 1982-83 fiscal year meet and confer impasse by using some or all of the proceeds of Senate Bill No . 46 as the cornerstone of such a settlement . At that meeting, the City representative advised RPFF representatives that the City could not make a firm proposal for settlement until official notice on the terms of Senate Bill No . 46 was received from the Public Employees Retirement System; however, the City wanted to let the Association know that it was considering a departure from its no increase posture; and WHEREAS , at the November 16 , meeting, the City representative discussed, pending official notice on Senate Bill No . 46 , the following possible framework for settlement : 1 . Application to employees of some or all of monetary benefits accruing the City as a result of Senate Bill No . 46 , provided that any such application would be limited to the 1982-83 fiscal year only, because any bene- fits of Senate Bill No . 46 were anticipated to be limited to the last six months of the 1982-83 fiscal year. -12- 2 . Amendment of the existing Public Employees Retirement System contract to allow for individual employee vesting of amounts paid by the City of the employees ' share of the PERS contribution. 3 . An opportunity to enter into the State Unem- ployment Disability Insurance program. 4 . Adoption of a modified grievance and dis- ciplinary appeal procedure . WHEREAS , the City representative informed RPFF representatives , and the representatives of other City employee organizations , that any offer made using benefits of Senate Bill No . 46 would be made as a good faith gesture to City employees and in hopes of obtaining labor peace for the remainder of the fiscal year, but not as any type of recognition that the City ' s fiscal plight had improved to the point where substantial increases in employee wages and benefits could be granted ; and WHEREAS , RPFF representatives did not expressly reject the framework for settlement discussed by the City, and advised the City that it would be willing to receive another proposal if and when the City had all information necessary to make a firm, definite proposal , and WHEREAS , in early December, 1982 , the City received official word from the Public Employees Retirement System that it would receive a onetime credit against the City' s agency contribution due to the Public Employees Retirement -13- System, amounting to $358 , 835 . 34 , for the period covering January 1 , 1983 to June 30 , 1983 ; and WHEREAS , the City was faced with the difficult choice between using the benefits of Senate Bill No . 46 to restore reserve and restricted funds to the previous levels long deemed to be prudent and necessary by the City , or attempting to achieve labor peace with its employees ; and WHEREAS , the City recognized that both alterna- tives constituted a worthy and responsible use of City funds , and decided to divide the benefits of Senate Bill No . 46 equally between the City ' s employees and other City needs in hopes of achieving labor peace for the remainder of the 1982-83 fiscal year; and WHEREAS , the City believed that the most equitable way to allocate the half of the Senate Bill No . 46 benefits that would be offered to employees would be to divide the total amount allocated to employees by the number of employee positions in the City , resulting in an amount per City employee of approximately $548 . 00 . The amount to be offered to each employee organization was based upon the number of employee positions in the applicable representation unit times the amount available per employee City-wide ; and WHEREAS , the City authorized its representative to offer a proposal for settlement using the funds as allocated above, and to offer the employee organizations flexibility so that they could decide how the total amount allocated per - 14- employee organization unit would be distributed within the unit ; and WHEREAS , the City also authorized its representa- tive to offer to all three employee organizations an amend- ment to the applicable Public Employees Retirement System contract that would provide for individual employee vesting of amounts paid by the City of the employees ' share of the PERS contribution, and to make any savings to the City as a result of said amendment available to employees , on a pro rata basis for the remainder of the fiscal year; to offer the opportunity to enroll in the State Unemployment Dis- ability Insurance program; and, to offer a modified griev- ance and appeal procedure; and WHEREAS , on December 21 , 1982 , the City resolved its impasse and reached agreement with the employee organiza- tion representing the largest number of City employees on the basis of the City ' s aforementioned proposal for settlement ; and WHEREAS , on December 22 , 1982 , City representa- tives met with representatives of RPFF and made the afore- mentioned proposal , describing it as the City ' s last and best offer; and WHEREAS , RPFF representatives stated they would take the offer under consideration; and WHEREAS, without informing City representatives , RPFF informed the media that it had wholly rejected the City' s offer; and - 15- WHEREAS , upon being contacted by a City represen- tative , an RPFF representative confirmed statements in the media that RPFF had wholly rejected the City ' s offer; and, stated that RPFF wished to enter mediation, and had contacted a representative of the State Mediation and Conciliation Service to engage the parties in mediation without the con- currence of City representatives ; and WHEREAS , the City representative informed the RPFF representative that the City does not desire to enter into mediation on this dispute , nor does not intend to increase the monetary amounts contained in its last offer; and WHEREAS , RPFF was informed, in advance , that it would be given the opportunity to appear before the City Council , to state its full position with respect to the impasse , at the Council meeting on January 4 , 1983 , and again on January 18 , 1983 , but it declined to do so on both occasions ; and WHEREAS , the City Council now finds that the parties have exhausted the means for resolving the impasse among themselves , and that a direction from the City Council that the parties enter into a third-party dispute involving procedure to resolve the impasse would be futile ; and WHEREAS , it is the City Council ' s position that to increase the City ' s last offer to the Association would result in the further depletion of reserves for contingencies and unforeseen City needs , and would hasten the deterioration of the City ' s overall financial condition; and that this - 16- position is further necessitated by prudent fiscal management and the uncertainties associated with municipal government finance , including trends and projections signaling a con- tinued decline in monies available to municipal governments from the State and other sources ; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redlands as follows : 1 . The City Council hereby takes the following action regarding the impasse and deems such action to be in the public interest : All current wages , hours and other terms and conditions of employment applicable to employees in the Fire Fighters unit shall remain in full force and effect for the remainder of fiscal year 1982-83 . 2 . This legislative action by the City Council of the City of Redlands is final and binding pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brawn Act and the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution. 'Februarv, ADOPTED this 1st dal of Jantrei�, 1983 . PF�tyor, City of Redlands ATTEST : G�if7 c n yf Clerk,, y of Redlands - 17 EDL DS PROFESSIONAL ME. JUTE"RS RG LOCAL NO. 1354, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AVL-CIO AFFILIATED WITH FEDERATED FIRE FIGHTERS OF CALIFORNIA zd •�_ . . . P. O. BOX NO. 784 REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA 92373 i•�` 6 � M April 19 , 1982 �D ��- Mr . Chris Christiansen City Manager APR 2 a 1982 Redlands City* Hall Redlands , California 92373 Dear Mr . Christiansen: SUBJECT: Meet and Confer on Wages , Hours , and Working Conditions The following is a list of requests from the Redlands Professional Fire Fighters : 1 - Cost of Living Increase 2 . Vacation Schedule 3 . Sick Leave Benefits 4. Cafeteria Benefit Plan This list is not necessarily in order of priority, nor is it meant to limit the scope of topics that might arise during the Meet and Confer process relating to wages , hours , and working conditions . Respectfully submitted, Uohn L . Habant �4esident, Local 1354 I .A.F.F. ,.r = ,ZE : .["In'S PROF "Al FIRE RGH 9:2S ! ;z 1 LOCAL NO. 4354. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL-CIO AFFILIATED WITH FEDERATED FIR £ FIGKTEk5 OF CALIFORNIA -1 P. O.. BOX NO. 784 • REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA 92373 -�fj.0� July 26 , 1982 TO: Redlands City Council, Members The City of Redlands is and has been faced with a critical shortage of fire- fighters . On a per capita basis Redlands is below the . 70 percent firefighter per capita ratio. Comparing this with suggested minimum levels of manning, or the national average of 1 . 16 percent, one can easily see the serious deficiency. In order to bring the Redlands manning level to the national' average would require hiring an additional 28 fire fighters . Obviously, the economic climate is not condusive to such hiring. This leaves us with, on the one hand, a serious shortage of fire fighters , and on the other, a solution that is economically prohibitive . .This problem is not going to solve itself. As the city grows and develops it will in fact manifest itself in the loss of life and property. Because of the seriousness of this shortage and the basic concern all fire fighters- have. for public safety, the employees .of the Redlands Fire Depart- ment are willing to negotiate a constant manning level of 14 in lieu of wanes and benefits . This is not to say that the employees are willing to forego all possible wage or fringe benefits to increase efficiency and protection. It is to say, however ; that the problem is of a serious enough nature that rVU T 13 T rr UnU City Council Members Page 2 July 26 , 1982 action must be. taken. We feel this offer opens -a new level of cooperation between the employees of the fire department and the city. It is our hope that with the best interests of the citizens of Redlands as a paramount issue an equita- ble solution can be resolved. A detailed explanation of deployment of manning and budgetary concerns is presently being prepared and will soon be available for your considera- tion. John L. Habant Pres-ident Local No . 1354, IAFF , i PROPOSED LISTING OF SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFIT ALTERNATIVES 1. 107 Cost of Living 2. Highest one year on retirement 3. Sick Time: Unused time accrued to be applied at retirement or: One half unused time to be bought back (annually) 4. 2.5% differential for Captains 5. 2.5% differential for Fire Prevention Officers 6 . Educational Incentive: 7.5% Batchelor' s Degree 10.1% Graduat7e Degree 7. Ful-1- paid medical plan for employee's dependents 8. 14 man constant manning (see attached statement)