HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3.E 10/17/2016DATE: October 17, 2016
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Agenda Item #3.E
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Receiving the Arbitration Panel Award and Ratifying the Tentative
Agreements Executed by the Duly Authorized Representatives of the
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415, Unit 7
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Receiving the Arbitration
Panel Award and Ratify the Tentative Agreements Executed by the Duly Authorized
Representatives of the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415, Unit 7.
BACKGROUND
The International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415 (IAFF) Memorandum of
Understanding expired on June 30, 2013. The City met and conferred with Union representatives
in an attempt to reach a negotiated agreement. IAFF declared impasse in October 2016 and the
parties sought mediation, which took place in February 2016. Despite the parties' best efforts,
IAFF informed the City on March 1, 2016 that it was moving to interest arbitration under Article
XV of the City Charter.
The City Charter prohibits firefighters and police officers from striking. Accordingly, it provides
a means of alternate dispute resolution by which the parties resolve their impasse through a
process known as interest arbitration. In interest arbitration, an independent arbitration panel
conducts a hearing and issues a decision which resolves each impasse issue in favor of one of the
parties. That decision is binding on the parties and may not be appealed or otherwise
implemented. Although the interest arbitration provisions of the Charter have been in effect since
1990, this is the first time an employee organization has requested the process be utilized.
Interest arbitration took place July 6 and 7, 2016. The Arbitration decision was issued on
September, 22, 2016, and pursuant to the 10 -day waiting period required by the City's Charter,
was published (final) on October 2, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Prior to reaching impasse, the parties signed five tentative agreements, the language of each is
provided at Attachment 2. They are:
Term: Through December 31, 2017
Dental: Maximum benefit amount per person per calendar year is raise to $2,000, an increase of
$500.
Long Term Disability: City contribution for Long Term Disability, increases $7.50 per month to
a total of $19.50 per month.
Vacation Selection Procedure: The maximum number of suppression personnel eligible to be on
vacation at any one time increases from a total of one, to one Firefighter /Firefighter Paramedic
and one Engineer or Captain per shift.
These tentative agreements require City Council ratification, which can be accomplished with
the adoption of the attached Resolution.
The issues which were the subject of mediation, and ultimately arbitration, were: wages, pension
contribution, longevity, medical premiums, sick leave usage and minimum staffing. A summary
of the parties' positions in arbitration, and the Arbitration decision on each issue, are provided in
Attachment 3. The Arbitration Board's Opinion and Decision is included at Attachment 4, and
is briefly summarized below:
Summary of Decision
1. 4% wage increase effective the first full pay period following the publication of the
Board's final decision on October 2, 2016.
2. 2% wage increase effective 1/1/17
3. One -time $4,000 cash payment to all unit members (which represents an approximate
one -year amount of retroactivity)
4. Longevity 5% after 15 years of employment effective as of date of award
5. Employee and City share 50150 cost of any premium increases over 9%
6. No base wage increase with increased employee PERS contribution swap
7. No retroactivity
8. No change to sick leave use
9. No change to minimum staffing
Pursuant to Council direction, the City has worked hard to maintain consistency amongst the
various bargaining units. The bargaining group most comparable to the IAFF is the Police
Officers' Association of Petaluma who reached negotiated agreements with the City shortly
before the final arbitration decision. Provided, for comparison, is a summary of the negotiated
agreement with Unit 6, and the results of the IAFF arbitration award:
Unit 6 — term through 6/30/18
w/FY 17/18 wage re- opener in April 2017
Unit 7 — term through 12/31/17
4% September 2015
N/A
3.5% October 2016
4% October 2016
$1,000 non -PERS -able cash payment
$4,000 non -PERS -able cash payment
N/A
2% January 2017
[Unit 6 has longevity]
5% longevity after 15 years of service
2
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The estimated cost of the Agreement is $638,550.44 for FY 2016/17, and $335,273.21 for July
2017 through December 2017. All costs will be in the General Fund. The cost for the wage
increases totals $749,523.64 for the term of the contract. The cost of the one -time, non- PERSable
cash payments is $224,300. The City is self - funded for dental. The costs of agreements regarding
Dental, and Long Term Disability, are negligible.
Ongoing costs are approximately $91,000 more than the City had budgeted and reflect the award
of Longevity. Ongoing resources related to fee updates, along with one -time revenues received
related to real property transfer taxes and mandated cost reimbursements, are identified to fund
this additional cost.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Tentative Agreements between the City of Petaluma and International Association of
Firefighters, Local 1415
3. Summary of Last Positions and Arbitration Panel Decision
4. Opinion and Decision of Arbitration Board
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE ARBITRATION PANEL AWARD AND RATIFYING
THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BY THE DULY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1415, UNIT 7
WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma, through its duly authorized representatives, and the
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415, Unit 7 (IAFF), through its duly authorized
representatives, have concluded their mutual obligation to meet and confer in good faith in
accordance with the Meyers - Milias -Brown Act and the City's Employer - Employee Relations,
Rules and Regulations (Resolution No. 55412 N.C.S.) and received an Opinion and Decision of
the Arbitration Board convened under Article XV of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the duly authorized representatives of the City and the IAFF have executed
Tentative Agreements pursuant to Section 15, Resolution No. 5512 N.C.S. and recommend their
approval by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, pursuant to Section 28 of the Charter of the City of
Petaluma, and as the City's Municipal Employees' Relations Officer (Resolution No. 5375
N.C.S.), is required and empowered to make a recommendation to the City Council on matters
related to employees' compensation; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed and concurs with said Tentative
Agreements and does recommend that the City Council ratify said Tentative Agreements; and
WHEREAS, the Opinion and Decision of the Arbitration Board is binding on the parties
pursuant to Article XV of the City Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tentative Agreements, being in the
best interests of the City of Petaluma, are ratified and effective through December 31, 2017 and
the Opinion and Decision of the Arbitration Board is received.
4
ATTACHMENT 2
Tentative Agreements
Tentative Agreement between
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415 (Unit 7)
and the City of Petaluma
Negotiation of Successor Agreement to Unit 7 MOU expired 6/30/13
Section 1.1 Effective Date
Recognizing that both parties desire stability, the parties have reached tentative agreement on term as
follows:
This Memorandum of Understanding shall be for the period commencing on July 1, 2013 with
adoption by the City Council and continuing through December 31, 2017.
This Tentative Agreement does not include any other sections of the MOU or any other wages, terms or
conditions of employment.
�L (Za ,
For the Association o
Ken Dick, President IAFF Local 1415
Date:3/17/15
Fo h�ty o Petaluma
Di nne Dinsmo e, Director of Human Resources
w.
Tentative Agreement between
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415 (Unit 7)
and the City of Petaluma
Negotiation of Successor Agreement to Unit 7 MOU expired 6/30/13
Section 12.4(B) Vacation — Selection Procedure
The parties have reached tentative agreement on the following language revision:
12.4(B) Vacation — Selection Procedure
(B) With the exception of C below, the maximum number of suppression personnel eligible to be on
vacation at any one time shall be one (1) Firefighter /Firefighter Paramedic and one (1) Engineer or
Captain per shift. _ /j
For the Association
Ken Dick, President IAFF Local 1415
Date: 7/8/15
Fof`tfig dty d Petaluma
Dianne Din more, Director of Human Resources
Tentative Agreement between
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415 (Unit 7)
and the City of Petaluma
Negotiation of Successor Agreement to Unit 7 MOU expired 6/30/13
Section 13.5 Sick Leave — Physician Certification
The parties have reached tentative agreement on the following language revision:
13.5 Sick Leave — Physician Certification
phy n's GeFtif late stating the cause of the abseRcze
The employee shall be required by the Fire Chief to submit medical certification or other substantiating
evidence of illness for absences of two (2) consecutive sets. Verification of sick leave may be requested
of the employee within a reasonable amount of time before, during, or upon the employee's return to
work.
I
For the Association
Ken Dick, President IAFF Local 1415
Date: 3/x.7/15
Dianne Dinsmore, Director of Human Resources
Tentative Agreement between
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415 (Unit 7)
and the City of Petaluma
Negotiation of Successor Agreement to Unit 7 MOU expired 6/30/13
Section 32 Dental Program
The parties have reached tentative agreement to revise Section 32 Dental Program as follows:
The City shall provide a dental plan for the term of the Memorandum of Understanding and pay the
total premium costs for the employee and eligible dependents. The maximum benefit amount will
increase effective January 1, 2016 to two thousand dollars ($2,000) per person per calendar year. The
City shall contribute toward an orthodontia plan at a fifty percent,(50 %) c payment rate up to one one -
thousand dollars ($1,000) per child as defined in the plan. The City sha ear the cost of any premium
increases during the period covered by this MOU. E
i��a ..
For the Association
Ken Dick, President IAFF Local 1415
Date: 9j9/15
For the Oily of Frvtaluma
Dianne Dinsmore, Director of Human Resources
.�
...
The City shall provide a dental plan for the term of the Memorandum of Understanding and pay the
total premium costs for the employee and eligible dependents. The maximum benefit amount will
increase effective January 1, 2016 to two thousand dollars ($2,000) per person per calendar year. The
City shall contribute toward an orthodontia plan at a fifty percent,(50 %) c payment rate up to one one -
thousand dollars ($1,000) per child as defined in the plan. The City sha ear the cost of any premium
increases during the period covered by this MOU. E
i��a ..
For the Association
Ken Dick, President IAFF Local 1415
Date: 9j9/15
For the Oily of Frvtaluma
Dianne Dinsmore, Director of Human Resources
Tentative Agreement between
International Association of Firefighters, Local 1415 (Unit 7)
and the City of Petaluma
Negotiation of Successor Agreement to Unit 7 MOU expired 6/30/13
The parties have reached tentative agreement to revise Section 35 Long Term Disability Insurance as
follows:
35.1 LTD — Amount
The City shall pay the amount of nineteen dollars and fifty cents ($19.50) per month, per
employee. This amount shall not exceed, however, the total cost of the premium for the long-
term disability (LTD) insurance plan.
For the Association
Ken Dick, President IAFF Local 1415
Date: 9/9/15
Dianne Dinsmore, Director of Human Resources
r`
ATTACHMENT 3
Summary of Last Positions and Arbitration Panel Decision
WAGES:
IAFF Last Offer:
• Retro to 7/1/15 — 5% COLA with 1% employee contribution offset to pension
• Retro to 7/2/16 — 3% COLA with 1% employee contribution offset to pension
• 1/1/17 — 1% COLA with 1% employee contribution offset to pension
City Last Offer:
• 4% wage increase effective the first full pay period following the publication of the
Board's final decision
• 2% wage increase effective 1/1/17
• One -time $4,000 cash payment to all unit members (which represents an approximate
one -year amount of retroactivity)
Decision, Wages — For City
PERS:
IAFF Last Offer:
• Employee pay 3% additional
City Last Offer:
• No additional employee contribution
Decision, PERS — For City
LONGEVITY:
IAFF Last Offer:
• 5% after 15 years of service [No effective date proposed by IAFF, so arbitrator made
effective as of date of award]
City Last Offer:
• No longevity
Decision, Longevity — For IAFF
MEDICAL PREMIUMS:
IAFF Last Offer:
• Share 50150 costs over 9% increase, only if their package proposal accepted
City Last Offer:
• Share 50150 costs over 9% increase
Decision, Medical Premiums — For City
rel
SICK LEAVE:
IAFF Last Offer:
• Maintain status quo
City Last Offer:
• Hour- for -hour sick leave
Decision, Sick Leave — For IAFF
MINIMUM STAFFING:
IAFF Last Offer:
• Maintain status quo
City Last Offer:
• Allow to drop to 13 at City discretion
Decision, Minimum Staffing — For IAFF
7
ATTACHMENT 4
Opinion and Decision of Arbitration Board
IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF,
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1415,
Union,
and
CITY OF PETALUMA,
Employer
Re: Award to December 31, 2017
APPEARANCES:
OPINION and DECISION
]
] of
]
] ARBITRATION BOARD
]
] Tony Spitaleri, Union Appointee
] Richard S. Whitmore, City Appointee
] John Kagel, Neutral Member
]
]
For the Union: Scott A. Lewis, Esq., Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller &
Moskowitz, Santa Rosa, CA
For the Employer: Che I. Johnson, Esq., Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Fresno, CA
INTRODUCTION:
These proceedings, with hearings held on July 6 and 7, 2016, are pursuant to
Petaluma City Charter Article XV3. Arbitration, Section 82 Police and Fire Binding
Arbitration:
"...D. Impasse Resolution Procedures. All disputes or
controversies pertaining to wages, hours, or terms and conditions
of employment which remain unresolved after good faith
negotiations between the city and either the fire or police
1
department employee organization shall be submitted to a three -
member board of arbitrators upon the declaration of an impasse by
the city or by the recognized employee organization involved in
the dispute....
Any arbitration convened pursuant to this article shall be
conducted in conformance with, subject to, and governed by Title
9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
At the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the arbitration board
shall direct each of the parties to submit, within such time as the
board may establish, a last offer of settlement on each of the issues
in dispute. The arbitration board shall decide each issue by
majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on
that issue it finds most nearly conforms with those factors
traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of public and private
employment, including, but not limited to, changes in the average
consumer price index for goods and services, the wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of other employees
performing similar services, and the financial condition of the city
and its ability to meet the cost of the award.
After reaching a decision, the arbitration board shall mail or
otherwise deliver a true copy of its decision to the parties. The
decision of the arbitration board shall not be publicly disclosed and
shall not be binding until ten days after it is delivered to the parties.
During that ten -day period the parties may meet privately, attempt
to resolve their differences, and by mutual agreement amend or
modify any of the decisions of the arbitration board. At the
conclusion of the ten -day period, which may be extended by
mutual agreement between the parties, the decision of the
arbitration board together with any amendments or modifications
agreed to by the parties shall be publicly disclosed and shall be
binding upon the parties. The city and the recognized employee
organization shall take whatever action is necessary to carry out
and effectuate the award." (Er. Ex. B)
Prior to the hearings the Parties had resolved several issues which are not subject
to this proceeding, including that the term of their Agreement would end on December
31, 2017. (Transcript (Tr.) 292)
2
:i
ISSUES:
As the Charter requires, the Arbitration Board listed the following issues in
dispute at the conclusion of the arbitration hearings:
IA. The amount of wages or COLA;
1B. If so, when?
2A. Should there be a PERS employe contribution to the Employer
obligation;
213. If so,when?
3A. Should there be longevity pay;
313. If so, when?
4A. Should there be a limit to the Employer's contribution for
medical benefits;
413. If so,when?
5A. Whether or not there should be a change in the MOU
regarding the use of sick leave;
513. If so, when?
6A. Whether there should be a change regarding the decrease of
the number of minimum staffing;
613. If so,, when? (Tr. 371 -372)
ISSUES lA AND 1B WAGES AND RETROACTIVITY:
Union Last Offer:
"YEAR ONE: Effective and retroactive to July 1, 2015, a 5 %
COLA increase with 1% employee contribution offset to pension
(PEPRA) for a total of 10% contribution by employee to
retirement.
Employees already paying more than 9% to pension will
not make an additional I% contribution.
3
YEAR TWO: Effective and retroactive to July 2, 2016, a 3%
COLA increase with 1% employee contribution offset to pension
for a total of 11% contribution by the employee to pension.
Employees already paying more than 10% to pension will
not make an additional 1 % contribution.
YEAR THREE: Effective January 1, 2017, a 1% COLA increase
with 1% employee contribution offset to pension for a total of 12%
contribution by employees.
Employees already paying more than 11.75% to pension
will make an additional .25% contribution for a total of 12 %."
(Closing Brief (Br.) p. 2)
Employer's Last Offer:
"Wages — The City's final position is that the Unit receive a 4%
wage increase effective the first full pay period following the
publication of the Board's final decision and an additional 2%
wage increase effective January 1, 2017. (Total 6% increase over
the term of the agreement.) ...
Retroactivity -The City's final position is that the terms of this
agreement not be retroactive. Rather, the City offers a one -time
$4,000 cash payment to all unit members, which represents an
approximate 1 -year amount of retroactivity." (Br. pps. 2 -3,
footnote omitted)
The Union seeks an increase in wages of a cumulative nine percent, less up to
three percent for employee pension contributions. The Employer's proposal is for six
percent (after three months), and, as will be seen, without seeking employee pension
contributions. Further, the Employer proposes a one -time $4000 payment to Bargaining
Unit members.
Accordingly, the differences here are seemingly marginal, both grossly six percent
straight time. However, the cumulative effect of the Union's offer, basing each increase
on the percentage that preceded it, would show compounding increases. The second year
4
would be five percent compounded by the prior year's increase, and the third
compounded on the first two.
The Union is correct that Petaluma is behind each of the Parties' comparable
jurisdictions as admitted by both Parties (Un. Ex. 5, Er. Ex. V), and that there has been a
hiatus in wage increases, but not Employer -paid pension contributions and medical
expenses (Er. Ex. N, Tr. 310), while the CPI has increased. (Tr. 53) Nonetheless, the
compounding aspect of the Union's proposal, which it has not illustrated in terms of what
the increases would in fact be, needs to be balanced against the economic condition of the
Employer as well as the cost of other economic benefits sought by the Union.
The Union put forth a substantive presentation that the Employer has historically
underprojected what its revenues have been, with the conclusion that it is likely that that
would be the case going forward as well (Tr. 104 -108, 114 -115), although its
methodology is new to public entity financing. (Tr. 133, 206) The Employer's own
budgeting practices do conservatively consider revenues on the theory that without
certainty as to revenue sources it cannot fairly budget for them. (Tr. 117) For example,
the Employer knows that there are real estate development projects that are coming to
fruition, but that without building permits actually being drawn by the developers, it does
not count on revenues from them until that happens. (Tr. 170, 172)
Nonetheless, the Employer's offer is substantially more, with less strings attached,
than its prior multiple positions during bargaining, including seeking no requirement for a
pension contribution. It has an element to account for retroactivity by its payment offer
5
while the Union contends that a one -time payment is a bad -faith offer in that such
payments are a deterrent to bargaining real wage increases.
The Arbitration Board is required to balance the factors listed in the Charter in
determining which offer to select. Given the entire record, that balance is tipped in favor
of the Employer with respect to these issues.
DECISION AS TO ISSUES lA AND IB:
The Employer's last offer on wages and retroactivity set forth above most nearly
conforms with those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of public and private employment.
Arbitrator appointed by the Union: Dissent
Arbitrator appointed by the Employer: Concur
Neutral Arbitrator: Concur
ISSUES 2A AND 2B PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS:
T net nffarc
The position of the Union is set forth above in its wage proposal. The Employer's
position is that "the City does not seek to have employees contribute additional
compensation towards Ca1PERS."
6
Tlicrnccinn-
The decision with respect to Issues IA and IB, has taken the pension contribution
issue into account.
DECISION AS TO ISSUES 2A AND 213:
The Employer's last offer on pension contributions set forth above most nearly
conforms with those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of public and private employment.
Arbitrator appointed by the Union: Concur
Arbitrator appointed by the Employer: Concur
Neutral Arbitrator: Concur
ISSUES 3A AND 3B LONGEVITY PAY:
Union's Last Offer:
5% adjustments above his /her hourly rate of pay for employees
with fifteen (15) years of service with the City of Petaluma. (Br. p.
5)
Employer's Last Offer:
No longevity payment increase or differential. (Br. p. 3)
Tli Vol cc inn -
The Union points to the fact that police have had a longevity adjustment for years
and recently one has been agreed to for the Fire Department's senior staff Jr. 72), so that
to grant it here is "simply a matter of equity." (Br. p. 5)
7
p
The Employer maintains that an additional five percent increase is beyond its
ability to pay and would only benefit a small number of employees, particularly those
approaching retirement, and would lead to a spiking of retirement costs. Further, there is
no issue shown that the increase is necessary for retention or recruitment.
The record supports the latter contention of the Employer that the sought -for
increase is not necessarily tied to employee retention. However, the Employer, which has
sought to emphasize internal comparison of employee units in its presentation (although
not a Charter requirement), particularly between police and fire for equity purposes (Br.
p. 4), has granted longevity to not only police many years ago but also more recently to
the Fire Department's senior staff, so that the Union's equity contention has merit.
Further, while there is an increase cost to the Employer, viewing the record on an overall
basis, the Employer has the ability to meet the costs involved.
DECISION AS TO ISSUES 3A AND 3B:
The Union's last offer on longevity set forth above most nearly conforms with those
factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of public and private employment. Given no date in the offer,
it is effective as of the date of this Award.
Arbitrator appointed by the Union: Concur
Arbitrator appointed by the Employer: Dissent
Neutral Arbitrator: Concur
ISSUES 4A AND 413 MEDICAL PREMIUMS:
Union's Last Offer:
"The Local is seeking the same benefit of medical premiums as all
other bargaining groups. If the Arbitrator grants the COLA above,
Local 1415 agrees to the City's proposal to pay for 50% (half) of
the Kaiser -Bay Area monthly medical insurance premium
percentage above 9 %. The City shall pay 50% and the Employee
shall pay 50% of this increase. This is the identical benefit of all
other City employees.
By way of background, currently, the baseline medical program is
Kaiser. Local members pay 5% of the premiums plus 5% of any
increase to the premiums. This proposal would then obligate the
member to pay 5% of the Kaiser premium plus 50% of any
increase over 9 %....
ISSUE 4B — RETROACTIVITY The Local agrees to retroactivity
of employee contributions to medical premiums if the COLA is
granted." (Br. p. 6)
Employer's Last Offer:
Medical Employee Pickup — the parties agree that employees will pay fifty
percent (50 %) of the increases in health and medical premiums in excess of nine
percent (9 %). (Br. p. 2, footnote omitted)
Discussion:
The Employer's statement is that the Parties have already agreed to what it states
once a full agreement is reached. The Union has agreed to the language, but conditioned
its acceptance on its wage increases being awarded, as they have not as proposed by it.
However, without extended discussion, the proposal of the Employer, and at least
the possibility of inclusion by the Union, the Arbitration Board can take notice that the
proposal is in line with sharing of health benefit increases by employees as has been
occurring in public and private employment.
DECISION:
The Employer's last offer on medical fee sharing set forth above most nearly conforms
with those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of public and private employment. Given no date in
the offer, it is effective as of the date of this Award.
Arbitrator appointed by the Union: Dissent
Arbitrator appointed by the Employer: Concur
Neutral Arbitrator: Concur
ISSUES 5A AND 5B SICK LEAVE:
Employer's Last Offer:
"...change the language in Section 13.6 of the MOU (City Exhibit
A, p. 11) to the following:
Sick leave will be charged against the employee's accrual
at a rate of an hour for an hour based on actual sick leave
usage." (Br. p. 2)
Union's Last Offer:
No change. (Br. p. 6)
Section 13.6 of the Memorandum of Understanding reads:
"Sick leave will be charged against the employee's accrual at a rate
of an hour for an hour based on actual sick leave usage, for the first
day of sick leave used per injury and illness. Each successive day
will be charged at a rate of 12 hours for the same injury or illness."
10
,, 'J
As explained by an Employer witness who pegged the savings to the Employer if the
proposal was adopted at $35,000 (Tr. 275):
"Fire Fighters work two days, off four, work two days, off
four, right? So if you call in sick on day one, you use 24 hours of
your sick leave and you are not going to be asked for a doctor's
note, you call in for day one and use 24 hours. You call in on day
two, you only use 12 hours instead of 24 hours of your vacation.
When you review the data, there are certain individuals
who consistently, whenever they call in, they take both days. So
that gives a Fire Fighter 10 solid days off in a row.
And one of the things that is, I think everyone knows with
Fire Fighters is that you end up calling in behind and you pay that
as overtime, so there's a compounding factor: Not only are you
paying for someone not being there, you are now paying for
someone to come and cover for them. And, obviously, you know,
if someone is genuinely sick, of course they have to be off. But it
appears we would actually have savings, and that was discussed, in
looking at it." (Tr. 274)
The upshot of this proposal would be to punish the entire Bargaining Unit for the
alleged sins of "certain individuals." If in fact there is such abuse it is a management
function to seek to stop it, and save money that way, rather than to affect the working
conditions and sick leave accrual of the bulk of the Unit. There was no evidence that such
an effort had been even undertaken, let alone that the problem had proved so intractable
that the only way to solve it was by the proposed change in the Agreement.
DECISION AS TO ISSUES 5A AND 513:
The Union's last offer with respect to the Employer's sick leave proposal set forth above
most nearly conforms with those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of public and private
employment.
11
10
Arbitrator appointed by the Union: Concur
Arbitrator appointed by the Employer: Dissent, opinion below
Neutral Arbitrator: Concur
ISSUES 6A AND 613 Minimum Staffing:
Employer's Last Offer:
"...the language in Section 7 of the parties' MOU to change so that
minimum staffing may be reduced to thirteen persons, at the
discretion of the City, and that following expiration of the
agreement, the minimum staffing level will be returned to 14." (Br.
pps. 2 -3)
Union's Last Offer:
No change in the Agreement. (Br. p. 7)
Discussion-
Section 7 of the Memorandum of Understanding provides:
"SECTION 7 - MINIMUM STAFFING
Fire Department suppression staffing shall be fourteen (14) persons
per shift in addition to the Battalion Chief. In the event of a
mechanical failure, accident, etc. and emergency apparatus or
equipment is unable to respond, the on -duty Battalion Chief shall
direct the staffing and reconfiguration of emergency equipment.
The Battalion Chief shall communicate with the Engine Company
Officers regarding changes and procedures to insure a timely
response of personnel and equipment. In the absence of an
emergency, staffing will remain fourteen (14) persons at all times."
(Er. Ex. A)
In 2009, the Parties agreed to a one -year moratorium on a minimum staffing figure
of 14 persons due to the fiscal necessities of the then on -going recession. Thereafter the
12
r
F�
14- person staffing was reinstated. The Employer here supports its proposal on the
grounds that the reduction is necessary to provide funding for its wage proposal and help
preserve its reserve balances in the face of declining revenues as projected by it. (Tr. 342)
Those issues have been discussed above.
The Employer further points to its overtime costs but has not provided an analysis
of what it can point to with respect to such costs being attributable to the minimum
staffing requirement by itself or to what degree by changing the minimum level (e.g., Tr.
324), the Employer conceding that the Department could continue to be staffed at 14
even with the requirement being eliminated. (Br. p. 14)
That having been said, the impact of the Employer's proposal, more importantly,
is an operational and safety one. (E.g., Tr. 359 et seq.) There was no evidence of the
impact of the 2009 cut as to operational and safety needs, not only for Department
personnel, but also the community. While the Union presented a case that detailed the
need for or advantage of 14- person staffing, including increases in service demands from
2009, the Employer only relied on the fiscal aspects of its proposal, not rebutting the
Union's evidence. The Arbitration Board necessarily has to take into account working
conditions as required by the Charter. Even recognizing, as the Employer maintains, that
deployment of the fire fighter workforce is within the discretion of management, without
evidence as to how and in what manner less than 14- person staffing would operationally
work, the Arbitration Board cannot accept the proposal under the terms required by the
Charter.
13
,f
Ill Is" 0i 24r:���� Ili YMV.11WIS
The Union's last offer with respect to the Employer's minimum staffing proposal set
forth above most nearly conforms with those factors traditionally taken into consideration
in the determination of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of public and private
employment.
Arbitrator appointed by the Union: Concur
Arbitrator appointed by the Employer: Dissent, opinion below
Neutral Arbitrator: Concur
THE ABOVE DECISIONS ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.
Signed on behalf of and with permission of all of the members of the Arbitration Board,
September 22, 2016 at Palo Alto, CA.
Neutral Arbitrator
DISSENTING OPINION
Issues 5A and 5B — Sick Leave
I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to provide firefighters with an
unprecedented sick leave benefit. That benefit allows a firefighter to take two shifts off
for personal illness without being charged for all the time taken. For the second shift of
twenty -four (24) hours off, the firefighter's sick leave balance is only reduced by twelve
(12) hours. The other twelve (12) hours is — in effect — paid vacation that does not even
14
reduce vacation balances. Remarkably, it is recorded as if it was time worked, even
though it is time off.
This unusual benefit poses several problems for the City. First, it creates a financial
incentive to employees to take advantage of the "free" half shift by extending their time
off, rather than returning to work. Second, such an absence often requires the City to
call in another firefighter to meet minimum staffing levels, thereby increasing overtime
costs to the City.
As the evidentiary record shows, firefighters already accrue sick leave at a rate fifty
percent (50 %) higher than other City employees. Firefighters accrue twelve (12) hours
per month while other city employees accrue eight (8) hours per month. The higher
accrual is appropriate since firefighters work shifts of twenty -four (24) hours rather than
eight (8) for other city employees. However, it is important to note that firefighters are
scheduled to be off work twenty (20) or more days per month, while other city employees
are typically off work eight (8) weekend days per month. Obviously, illness for
firefighters is much more likely to occur when they are off duty as compared to other city
employees, thereby reducing their need to utilize sick leave. There is certainly no
justification to provide them with "bonus" sick leave as occurs with this highly unusual
benefit.
The firefighters attempt to justify their unique perk by a misleading, erroneous and
completely unsupported allegation that "other fire departments provided this benefit of
decelerated sick leave.'
15
ir
(Firefighters closing brief, page 7, lines 9 -10). There is absolutely no evidence in the
record that as other fire department provides this benefit.
For these reasons, I dissent from the majority opinion on Issue 5A and 5B Sick leave.
DISSENTING OPINION
Issue 6A and 6B — Minimum Staffing
I respectfully dissent from the majority decision not to allow the City discretion to decide
if it is necessary to call back firefighters on overtime when daily staffing is at thirteen
(13) firefighters. This is not a proposal to set staffing at thirteen (13). It is merely a
proposal for one (1) year to allow the City to determine if conditions require fourteen
(14) firefighters at all times. For example, if there are fourteen (14) firefighters on duty
and one of them has to go home a few hours before his /her shift ends, the City could
decide to stay at thirteen (13) until the next shift begins, rather than call another
firefighter back on over -time. The proposal would allow fire professionals to exercise
their judgment as to what would be in the best interests of the firefighters and the public.
This is not an extraordinary proposal. The parties voluntarily agreed to reduce daily
staffing to thirteen (13) in 2009. There is no evidence whatsoever in 2009 that there was
any safety issue, either for the firefighters or for citizens.
It is important to note that the City's proposal to allow discretion to call back when
staffing is at thirteen (13) is for a limited time. If the proposal is accepted, it would go
into effect January 1. 2017 and would terminate at the end of 2017. This is completely
16
consistent with what both parties agreed was acceptable in 2009; namely, allowing
management to have discretion over staffing levels for a fixed period of time.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion on the issue of
Minimum Staffing.
17