LTC 166-2005 City Administration Recommendation for Impase with the CWA Bargaining Unit
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No. 166-2005
m
From:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. GOnZal~
City Manager
Date: June 24, 2005
To:
Subject: CITY ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDA ON FOR IMPASSE WITH THE
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERCIA (CWA) BARGAINING UNIT
The purpose of this LTC is to transmit to you the Administration's recommendation on the
proposals which are the subject of the impasse proceedings with the Communications
Workers of America (CWA) Union. You have already received under separate cover a copy
of the Special Magistrate's report.
The Florida Statutes, Chapter 447, require that the City and Union respond to the Special
Magistrate's recommendations within twenty (20) days of receiving his report unless his report
is accepted in its entirety. The City's recommendation was sent to the Public Employee
Relations Commission (PERC) on June 16, 2005 (Exhibit A - City's response to PERC).
The Statute further requires that the City and Union submit to the Commission their
recommendations to resolve the impasse. The Commission is then required to conduct a
public hearing and make the final decision regarding the disputed impasse issues. A "cone of
silence" is now in effect with the Commission regarding any impasse discussion for the City
and the Union until such time the public hearing takes place. The issues regarding the term of
agreement that may be imposed by the Commission is attached for your review (Exhibit B-
issues concerning term of agreement).
The CWA proposal (after two years of bargaining) requests a $7.1 million dollar per year
incremental increase (new money) for their bargaining unit and due to the nature of their
proposals would increase incrementally each year (Exhibit C - CWA proposal cost
summary). This $7.1 million dollar incremental increase represents costs associated for the
CWA only and does not address other bargaining units in the same pension system. The
pension proposals requested by the CW A would require increases overthe next 20-30 years.
The health insurance increase request will also continue incrementally and indefinitely, unless
re-negotiated downward at some point in the future (which would be unlikely and difficult to
do once a benefit is given). This type of incremental increase is not necessary for recruiting
or retaining CWA employees who are already competitively paid (as confirmed by the Florida
League of Cities salary survey comparators).
The proposal package recommended by the City meets the goals of ensuring fiscal
responsibility, maintaining the ability to recruit the most qualified workforce, and retaining our
current workforce by remaining at the top or near the top in every pay and benefit category.
The CW A has stated and agreed during the impasse hearing that for similar positions around
the state of Florida, the CW A employees at the City of Miami Beach have unparalleled wages
and benefits. Despite this admission, the CWA requested equal pay increases and benefits at
all levels with the Police and Fire Unions. The City rejects this argument based on the fact
that the Police and Fire Unions are not a comparable group for the CW A which is composed
of clerical positions, trades workers, lifeguards, parking and code employees, etc. Police and
Fire Departments are paid at a different level than the general employees across the country
due to the inherent dangers built into their jobs.
Even without a new contract in place since October 1, 2003, the CW A bargaining unit has
received lucrative "automatic" increases due to the nature of the contract (as with all collective
bargaining agreements). The following are several examples of these increases: (1) when
health insurance rates increase for the City each year, the City "automatically" increases its
contribution to the CWA; (2) CWA employees continue to receive their "step increases" each
year of either 3% or 4% (until they reach the maximum step in their classification); (3) CWA
employees continue to receive longevity bonuses (up to an additional 11 % of their salary),
and these longevity payments increase at set intervals based on their length of employment;
(4) the City continues to contribute 10% to the CW A employees in the 401 A retirement
system and the City made significant required contributions to the General Employees
Pension System ($1.8 million dollars on 10/1/03, $3.4 million on 10/1/04 and will make a
contribution of $3.8 million on 10/1/05) (Exhibit D - CWA automatic increases).
In total, the City will pay "automatic increases" of $3.9 million to the CWA bargaining unit from
October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2006. The "automatic increases" are in addition to the
CWA proposed incremental increases for a three year cost of living adjustment (COLA)
increase and the following: (1) various enhanced pension benefits; (2) increased health
insurance benefits; (3) a 3,000 hour union time bank; (4) increased cleaning allowance; (5)
increased time for union conventions; (6) increased costs associated with the promotional
process; (7) new accreditation pay; (8) new certification pay; (9) increased four (4) day work
weeks for lifeguards to a year round schedule; (10) creation of a four (4) day work week
schedule year round for pool guards; and (11) increased EMT supplement from 5% to 9%
which amount to $7.1 million. This equates to a $16,745 incremental increase per employee
in the CW A bargaining unit, which is significantly greater than the contracts agreed upon by
the POLICE (FOP), FIRE (IAFF), GSA and AFSCME unions (Exhibit E - CWA proposal
cost compared to other completed Union contracts). This $7.1 million (new money) is in
addition to the $3.9 million "automatic increases." This brings the CWA total cost ofthe three
year package to over $11 million in salary and benefits, which equates to an increase of
approximately $26,000 per bargaining unit employee; or a 68% increase (in salary and
benefits) over the 2004 average base wage.
Significantly, just as the "automatic increases" continue through the end of fiscal year 2006,
the proposed benefit enhancements will also continue (such as the proposed pension
enhancements for the next 20-30 years).
The City's Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) have advised
and warned that the CWA's requested $7.1 million dollar per year incremental increase in
wages will affect the long term sustainability of the City, which is highly dependent upon
tourism and resort taxes, and is vulnerable to unforeseen events such as hurricanes and
other catastrophic events. This proposal could affect funding priorities such as the long term
reserves of the City and several other issues, such as maintaining a prudent financial reserve
and being able to address citizen priorities to provide public safety, sanitation, recreational
programming and improved infrastructure.
2
The next step in the negotiation process is for the City Commission to make a final
determination as to what additional pay and benefits, if any, should be added to the already
lucrative CWA contract. Below is an outline of the disputed issues:
1. Wage Proposal/Term of Agreement
CITY OFFER = $1,306,076 (3 year total)
Year 03/04 = 0
Year 04/05 = 1.5% lump sum (not pensionable) + an additional 3%
Year 05/06 = 3.5%
Although the CW A has been negotiating with the City for the past two years, and was offered
the same wage proposal as the Police and Fire (3%,3%,3.5%) over a year ago, they rejected
it. The Special Magistrate recognized the fact that dragging out the negotiation process
should not be rewarded. The City's four other unions negotiated their contracts over the past
year, in a timely fashion and in good faith.
2. Pension
The CWA members belong to either the General Employees Retirement System (GERS) or
the 401 A retirement plan. The GERS is considered to have better benefits than our current
Unclassified Pension System and the 401A plan. In fact some employees have turned down
promotions to Unclassified jobs because they did not want to change their pension system. In
addition, the CWA has requested that those employees in the 401A plan be allowed a second
opportunity to move from the 401A plan to the GERS system. The GERS pension system
was divided into a two-tier plan on February 21, 1994. Although overtime is not pensionable
for the Tier B employees, it is 100% pensionable for the Tier A employees (Exhibit F -
pension comparison). Therefore, in calculating the pension, the two highest years of
earnings, including 100% of overtime, is the determining factor used in calculating the final
average earnings for the remainder of their life. The City does not agree that these additional
overtime earnings should represent the regular pensionable earnings of the employee.
The City has offered the following three items on pension:
a) Allow promoted Classified employees to stay in the Classified pension system;
b) Allow employees currently in the 401A plan to stop contributions to the 401A and start
in the GERS pension system (Le. a second one-time irrevocable decision) - CITY
PROPOSAL = $35,791/year, incrementally increasing over 20-30 years.
c) No pensionable overtime for Tier A, in order to equalize the two tiers - CITY
PROPOSAL (savings) = ($660,396)
The CWA proposed pension enhancements include the addition of a Deferred Retirement
Option Plan (DROP); enhancing service connected and non-service connected disability
benefits; add two years to each member's credited service for purposes of normal retirement
benefits (member would pay 10% of salary each year); allow employees in the 401 A plan to
move into the pension system with their creditable service time and account balances;
increase the benefits for all Tier B employees (62% of employees in CW A are in Tier B) to the
level of Tier A employees; implement a "Rule of 70" (allow normal retirement at age 50 and
ten years of service or when the total of age plus service equals 70); and increase post-
retirement survivor benefits from 50% to 100%.
In addition to these pension enhancements, it is significant to note that there is pending
litigation (the Richard McKinnon lawsuit) against the City regarding pension issues. This class
lawsuit seeks to have the ordinances that increased the employee pension contributions from
3
8% to 10% declared invalid. This would reduce the employee contribution back to 8%. The
lawsuit further demands that all employee pension contributions in excess of 8% that have
been made since 1997 be refunded. The class action is composed of all participants in the
General Employees Retirement System who made or are making a contribution of 10%.
Because of the pending litigation, the City should not consider enhancing pension benefits.
These enhancements as proposed by the CW A will cost the City $3.1 million dollars alone. If
these pension enhancements were applied to the remainder of the City employees (which
would most certainly be requested by our other bargaining units), as cost out by the Pension's
actuary, these same enhancements City-wide will cost $7.9 million in the first year alone.
It is significant to note that all pension enhancements, including those in the CWA
proposals continue to incrementally increase in cost and reoccur over a 20-30 year
period (the life of the pension participant).
3. Health Insurance
Although the City added two additional health plan choices in 2001, the CWA has refused to
allow their membership to choose from these two plans which are less costly (and optional) to
the employees. While the City contributes 50% to the three original plans, the City pays 75%
toward the employee's cost for the two newer optional plans. These optional plans are more
in line with the benefits generally provided to employees. When offered to the AFSMCE
bargaining unit, 25% of employees switched to these optional plans.
The City has proposed the following regarding health insurance:
a) To allow flexible language for the City to include the two optional plans in the health
insurance offerings.
b) Ask employees to make a one time election to continue their retiree health insurance
when they retire from the City. (The City contributes 50% towards retiree health
insurance for the lifetime of the employee and their family).
c) Require employees in the 401A plan to work for 10 years (as is currently required in
the pension system) before becoming eligible for retiree health insurance. There is
currently no vesting requirement at all for 401 A participants.
The CW A proposal to form their own Health Trust increases the cost to the City for the CW A
Health Trust, increases the cost to the City and all other employees that are "left" in the Health
plan, and increases the cost the City would pay to the Police and Fire Trusts, since their
payment is based on a formula which would increase if the City were to agree to the CW A
demand. In addition, the CWA proposal would adversely affect the City's ability to obtain
group health coverage due to the number of CW A retirees which would not be moved into the
CWA Health Trust. The CWA proposal represents an increased cost of $1,234,196 per
year, which would only continue to increase with rising Health Insurance rates.
4. Election of Remedies
As provided in the Florida Statutes and in all five of the City's collective bargaining
agreements, employees may appeal any disciplinary action or contractual issues including the
terms of their wages, hours and working conditions through a grievance and arbitration
process outlined in each contract. This process consists of four steps. The first three steps
are heard within the City and the last step by an independent professional arbitrator
experienced in labor issues and mutually selected by the parties from a list provided by the
U.S. Department of Labor's Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In the past, the City
4
has provided for a secondary appeal process for limited forms of discipline through the City's
Personnel Board, which is required to have only one member with any type of human
resources experience. All of the other Unions have agreed to discontinue use of the
Personnel Board for disciplinary appeals. The City proposes that CWA utilize the
grievance/arbitration process exclusively for disciplinary appeals.
5. Union Time Bank/Union Conventions
The City proposes the Union adopt the use of a 1200 hour time bank paid for by the City for
all Union business (except negotiations and Labor-Management meetings which is additional
time proposed to be paid by the City). Currently the CW A is allowed to have 17 Union
stewards to conduct union business on an unlimited basis on City time. The City proposes no
change to the number of stewards, but needs to have some control over the amount of time
being spent. The Police Department utilizes a detached president, who works full time on
union business (which the CWA was offered and rejected), and the Fire Department utilizes a
1500 hour time bank. Although the CWA claims they have more "work sites" than the FOP
and IAFF, the issues in the Police and Fire Departments are far more complex than those of
the CWA, even though the CWA has more members and "work sites," Therefore, on a
comparative basis, the suggested 1 ,200 hours is fair. The CW A proposed a 3,000 hour time
bank which is not inclusive of all union time, including City paid time for "lunches" with their
employees.
6. Cleaning Allowance
The City pays approximately $72,480 per year for a cleaning allowance to CWA members.
This allowance was initiated several years ago when uniforms required dry cleaning which is
not the case today. All CW A uniforms are wash and wear, and paying $40 per month to clean
City uniforms, which are machine washable, is no longer justifiable. Therefore, the City
proposes that this "cleaning allowance" be eliminated. The CWA proposes not only to
continue the cleaning allowance, but to increase the amount to $50per month and make an
additional 123 employees eligible for this allowance.
7. Promotions
The City recommends "status quo" as to the current process utilized for promotions. The
current process, which includes a weighted interview and written test for most clerical
positions, is effective and has been in place for many years. (The interview methodology
considers the importance of the interview question along with the quality of an applicant's
answer). The CW A is proposing a similar testing process used to hire entry level police
officers and firefighters. The CW A proposed testing process is extremely costly and
unnecessary since tests required for the classifications covered in this bargaining unit do not
require the extensive assessments necessary to employ police officers or firefighters. The
CW A also proposed that the City implement a rule that the interview portion of the
promotional process be limited to the top three employees who scored the highest on a
written exam. Such a directive would unnecessarily impede the City's ability and
management right to select the best employees for promotion and may raise Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) concerns. The CW A proposal would cost the
City approximately $172,000, plus additional staffing to implement.
8. SickNacation Leave Accrual and payment at termination
The City recommends "status quo" as to the current accruals, which is the same for all civilian
bargaining units. The current policy allows employees to accrue 360 hours of vacation time
before it "must be used" each year and 50% (of up to a maximum of 600 hours) for sick time.
5
Unused vacation time is paid at 100% at the time of termination. CWA is requesting an
additional 100 hours be allowed to accrue for vacation increasing the amount to 460 hours
before it "must be used". This could also increase their payout at termination by 100 hours
should they have accumulated this time.
9. Temporary Employees
The City recommends that the current restriction of hiring only thirty (30) temporary
employees be removed from the contract. Temporary employees are not part of the
bargaining unit, nor can the CW A bargain for them. They receive pay for hours worked at the
starting rate of pay for the classification, but do not receive benefits. Temporary employees
are necessary to supplement the work force for limited periods of time in some Departments.
Temporary lifeguards are hired every year during daylight savings time when more lifeguards
are needed; however, they are not needed all year long, and it would be costly and
unnecessary to retain them permanently. The City would like to add additional lifeguard
stands during peak times of the year, and would only need to "staff' them during that
temporary time. In addition, the Parking Department is considering temporary supplements to
the Parking Enforcement workforce during special events taking place in the City. Once again,
although vitally necessary at times, these employees are not permanently needed. The CW A
objects to the use of these temporary employees, and requests that the City hire additional
permanent employees which would supplement their bargaining unit. It is important to note
that the temporaries are not hired in lieu of permanent employees; are not hired at the
detriment of the bargaining unit; and in no case have caused any "layoff' situation for the
CWA.
10. Random Drug Testing
The City and the CW A have agreed that random drug testing should be instituted for safety
sensitive classifications such as Communications Operators, Complaint Operators, Crime
Scene Technicians, Dispatchers, Lifeguards, Pool Guards, Property Evidence Technicians
and Public Safety Specialists. CW A is the only bargaining unit with no form of random
testing. However, the CWA proposes a "once a year" drug testing program, whereby once you
are tested, you are not tested again during that year. The City proposes a true random
testing program with specific language on how to handle employees who test positive.
11. Accreditation and Certification Pay
The City rejects the CWA proposal to pay an "accreditation pay" for those CWA employees
who work in the Police and Fire Departments, Ocean Rescue Division, Recreation
Department, and any other Departments which "might possibly" attain accreditation anytime in
the future. Although several Departments have attained different levels and types of
"accreditation" certifications, there is no requirement or need for the City to provide an
"accreditation bonus" to every employee when the Department completes an accreditation
process. The CW A has proposed that their members, who work in the Police and Fire
Departments, receive an accreditation bonus, solely because it was negotiated with the Police
and Fire Unions. The Ocean Rescue Division has not received any certification. Although the
Recreation Department has received a "certification,ll no employees in the Recreation
Department, which include GSA, AFSCME, CWA and "Other" employees receive any bonus
for this certificate. The City does not propose artificially enhancing this already well paid unit
with these unnecessary bonuses. In addition, the CWA is requesting a "certification pay" for
those employees who work in the Code Compliance Department, based on them attaining a
Florida Association of Code Enforcement (FACE) level III certification which is not needed for
these employees to successfully perform their job functions. There is no justification for these
additional benefits, and it does not exist in any other municipality for employees in the CWA
6
classifications in Dade or Broward Counties, nor is this requested pay increase necessary to
recruit or retain employees in these jobs. The CW A proposal would cost the City an
additional $313,OOO/year and would increase if any Department attains any type of
accreditation certificate in the future.
12. Lifeguard and Pool Guard Scheduling
Per the CW A contract, the Lifeguards currently work four days per week for nine months out
of the year. (Pool guards work five days per week year-round). The CWA is requesting a
mandatory four day work week all year for both lifeguards and pool guards. The City proposes
management flexibility for the work schedule based on need, given the nature of our
TOURISM industry, special events taking place and residential needs. There are times when
twelve, ten or eight hour work days would be appropriate to accomplish the most effective
staffing necessary for safety and well-being of our residents and visitors. The CW A contract
already has provisions that require notice be given to employees should their schedule
change. The pools are open for scheduled hours only at our facilities around the City, and
there is no justification or need to be "locked in" to a twelve hour work day year round for our
pool guards. The CWA proposal for these "lock-in" schedules would cost the City an
additional $460,000 per year for staffing. This suggestion is an unnecessary impediment to
the City's exercise of its management right to determine appropriate shifts and coverage, and
it would have a negative impact on operational efficiencies, as well as an increased cost due
to the additional staffing required to cover the shifts. The City position would allow a greater
average of beach hours which may be possible with flexibility - either by utilizing staggered
eight (8) hour shifts or possibly twelve (12) hour shifts.
13. OSHA/Asbestos Removal Language
The City recommends "status quo" to this issue. In fact, the City is already doing all
inspections and reports required by law and there are no legitimate asbestos issues that even
need to be addressed.
14. Tuition Reimbursement Language
The City recommends "status quo" to this language, as this policy is standard throughout all
other contracts in the City.
15. Triple time and one-half pay
Currently, in the CWA contract, if an employee works on a holiday they get paid at time and
one half plus the holiday at regular pay which equals two and one half pay. However, if they
are called in to work the holiday on their day off, this pay becomes three and one half times
their regular pay. The City considers this benefit excessively bloated and unnecessary, and
recommends that in no case should the employee be paid more than two and one half times
their regular pay whether they are called in or not, as is stated in the AFSCME agreement.
The CW A proposed no change to this benefit.
16. Reporting Pay Language
The City recommends that this article be eliminated from the contract, because it is obsolete,
unnecessary language that has never been utilized. This language requires that employees
who report to work as scheduled will be guaranteed eight (8) hours of work or eight (8) hours
of pay.
7
17. Pay for Performance
The City recommends that the minimum score required to receive a step increase in CW A
(which is either 3% or 4% depending upon the classification) be changed from a score of 50
out of a 100 to a score of 75 out of a 100. In the other civilian bargaining units, a score of 90
is required for a 4% increase, a score of at least 80 is required for a 3% increase, and a score
of at least 60 is required for a 2% increase (Exhibit G - comparison of other civilian
bargaining unit pay increases). The City proposal requests a more equitable process within
all of our civilian units.
18. Contracting out
The City recommends new language in this article. The maintenance of the current language
requires the City to perform several functions even if the City "contemplates" contracting out.
The current language states that the City will "meet and discuss with the representatives of
the Union both the decision to contract and the effect of such contract upon members of the
Bargaining Unit. Such discussions will include a review of any cost analysis done by the City
and will occur prior to the execution of such a contract." The City's proposal would require the
City to meet with the Union when such a contract would result in a layoff of any bargaining
unit employee. The current language causes operational inefficiencies, unnecessarily broad
and is more than the law requires in part because the contract already provides ample
protection for employees who might be laid off in the event of the use of an outside contractor.
Moreover, Florida law does require a public employer to bargain with a union regarding the
decision to sub-contact services to the public.
19. EMT Lifeguard pay
The CW A lifeguards and pool guards presently enjoy a 5% supplement to their pay when they
receive an EMT certification. The City recommends status quo to this benefit. The CWA is
requesting an increase of this supplement from 5% to 9%, which would cost the City an
additional $76,000 per year, and would increase as more guards receive their EMT
certifications. The City rejects this proposed increase.
20. Uniforms
The City has the following three proposals regarding uniforms:
a) Eliminate the word "cotton" from the contract language. This will provide for a greater
selection of uniforms and access to a range of modern fabrics and materials in a cost
effective manner;
b) Add sponsorship language which allows the City to consider opportunities for vendors
to provide uniforms. This provides exposure for the City while defraying uniforms
costs;
c) Reduce the annual number of uniforms issued from six (6) to five (5) for all bargaining
unit employees that are issued City uniforms. The City does not require employees to
"turn in" uniforms each year, therefore a majority of employees have several years
worth of uniforms available. Old and worn uniforms are replaced on a regular basis.
This replacement is over and above the standard issue. This reduction was already
negotiated in the GSA contract and provides a cost savings to the City.
In summary, for over two years, the City has attempted to negotiate a fair and equitable
contract with the CW A. Although the CW A was offered similar wage and benefit packages
which were accepted by the City's four other bargaining units, the CW A has continually
rejected all City offers. Despite the fact that the Union leadership has openly agreed that they
have among the best wage and benefit packages for all comparable bargaining units within
8
and outside of the City, after two years, the CWA continues their demand for unreasonable
annual increases in wages and benefits coupled with language that restricts the City's ability
to operate efficiently. (Exhibit H - June 23, 2005 - Article - Budget Advisory Committee).
The CWA's many demands, which cost require the expenditure of $7.1 million new dollars, in
addition to the 3.9 million in "automatic increases" (explained above), will force the City into
long term fixed expenses that will affect the long term sustainability of the City. The City will
then surely face demands by all other Unions for these same exorbitant increases. The
Administration has offered a fair and equitable package to CWA, whom already enjoy the
benefits of an outstanding collective bargaining agreement. The City's proposal while fiscally
prudent, also maintains excellent wage and working conditions for all employees in the CWA
bargaining unit. (Exhibit I - City's proposal summary and contract language).
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you.
Attachments:
Letter from the City to (PERC) - Exhibit A
Issues concerning term of agreement - Exhibit B
CW A Proposal Cost summary - Exhibit C
CWA "automatic" increases - Exhibit D
CWA Proposal Cost comparison to other Unions - Exhibit E
Pension comparison - Exhibit F
Performance appraisal increase comparison - Exhibit G
June 23, 2005 - Article - Budget Advisory Committee - Exhibit H
City proposal summary and contract language - Exhibit I
JMG\LG\mr
cc: Murray Dubbin, City Attorney
Donald Papy, Chief Deputy City Attorney
Tim Hemstreet, Assistant City Manager
Robert Middaugh, Assistant City Manager
Patricia Walker, Chief Financial Officer
Kathie Brooks, Director, Office of Budget and Performance Improvement
Ramiro Inguanzo, Chief of Staff
Linda Gonzalez, Labor Relations Director
Robert Sugarman, CW A Attorney
Budget Advisory Committee Members
F:IHUMAlLABORRELILabor RelationslCommission LeUerslL TC CWA impasse Commission Update (with all changes).doc
In 0 \I\J"-I'"' , i ir,
3~lj.:;tJ ,-"/)";,'11,)\.,1..,,,,
CO : III~V f-J Z Hllr' SO
03^i3~)3~
9
EXHIBIT A
-
Senterfitt
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Fort Lauderdale
Jacksonville
Miami
Orlando
Tallahassee
Tampa
Washington, DC
West Palm Beach
One Southeast Third Avenue
Sun Trust International Center
28th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131-1714
www.akennan.com
3053745600 lei 305374 5095fax
June 16, 2005
VIA FACSIMILE
Honorable June Farrell
Public Employees Relations Commission
4050 Esplanade Way
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Re: PERC Case No. SM-2004-037
City of Miami Beach's Letter Concerning Special Magistrate's Recommendations
,--
Dear Ms. Farrell:
As an initial matter, it should first be noted that the cost of the CW A demands (and the
Special Magistrate's recommendations) greatly exceeds what is fiscally prudent and completely
disregards the interest of the City's taxpayers. These demands also present unacceptable
operational and efficiency concerns. In addition, the Special Magistrate's recommendations were
blatantly slanted in favor of the union with respect to many of the City's management rights. In
some cases, the recommendations ignored or simply failed to mention or recognize the City's
positions and explanations. Finally, his report contained a number of inaccuracies and
inconsistcmt statements.
More specifically, the City provides the following responses to each of the
recommendations made by the Special Magistrate:
TERM OF AGREEMENT: While the City would agree with the Special Magistrate's
concept that the parties may prefer a 3 year contract over a I year contract, it is important to note
that pursuant to Chapter 447 of Florida Statutes, the City Commission is legally entitled to
impose a contract for only the first fiscal year at issue, which is the fiscal year that covered the
period October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004.
WAGES: While the City agrees with the concept suggested by the Special Magistrate
that wages should not be paid in a retroactive manner, the City rejects the proposed amount of
wages in the first, second and third years of this agreement because the amounts are higher than
,--
{M2266639;1}
J
:J
EXHIBIT
A
Honorable June Farrell
r- June 16,2005
Page 2
the City. believes to be appropriate. In addition, the Special Magistrate refused to consider
relevant comparative (and statutorily required) wage and benefits data provided by the City.
PENSION: Tbe City accepts the Special Magistrate's recommendation that employees
who are promoted from the CW A into a position that is outside the General Employee's
Retirement Plan could elect to remain in that Plan. However, the City rejects all remaining
recommendations made by the Special Magistrate regarding the other proposed pension changes
because the cost of those proposed pension changes is excessive and unnecessary.
HEAL TH INSURANCE: The City rejects the recommendation because the creation of a
separate health trust for the CW A will have an adverse fmancial impact on both the City and the
remaining participants in the City's healthcare plans.
ELECTION OF REMEDIES: The City rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendation,
in part because it would leave the CW A as the only bargaining unit whose members could take
disciplinary appeals to the Personnel Board, which would unnecessarily create administrative
inefficiencies. In addition, unlike the arbitration process, which is a professional experienced
arbitrator, only one member of the board is required to have any human resources experience
.--.
UNION TIME BANK/CONVENTIONS: The City rejects the Special Magistrate's
recommendation of the status quo in part because the recommendation completely ignored the
City's proposal on this issue, which would have allowed for more administrative controls and
accountability on the use of Union time for any reason.
CLEANING ALLOWANCES AND UNIFORMS: The City rejects the Special
Magistrate's recommendation to keep the status quo for cleaning allowance and for uniforms
because those recommendations are completely inconsistent with the City's position and will
result in unnecessary additional cost to the City. The City also rejects the Special Magistrate's
recommendation regarding payment to the Union's general funds related to the IZOD contract in
part because no such funds are anticipated. Even if there were any, such funds should be paid
only to the City's taxpayers. Such funds, if any ever exist, should be used by the City to better
serve the public and not to enrich the Union's general fund. In addition, once again, the Special
Magistrate's recommendation completely ignored the City's position on the contract language
related to sponsorship, reduction in number of uniforms issued accordingly, and the "cotton"
requirement. The City accepts the Special Magistrate's recommendation that no dress uniform
should be provided to any member of this bargaining unit.
.--.
PROMOTION: The City accepts the Special Magistrate's rejection of the Union
proposal regarding use of promotional exams, but the City rejects the Special Magistrate's
recommendation that the City develop a rule that the oral exam should be limited to the three
employees who scored the highest on a written exam because the City believes that such a rule
would unnecessarily impede the City's ability and management right to select the best employees
(M2266639;\ }
Honorable June Farrell
r June 16,2005
Page 3
for promotion. Moreover, the Special Magistrate ignored the City's concerns regarding potential
EEOC issues.
SICKN ACA nON LEA VE ACCRUALS: The City accepts the Special Magistrate's
recommendation that the status quo should be maintained on this issue.
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES: The City rejects the Special Magistrate's
recommendation that the status quo of thirty (30) temporary employees be maintained while at
the same time creating a rule which would limit the City's ability to use temporary employees for
more than six (6) months because this will unnecessarily restrict the City's ability to use
temporary employees.
RANDOM DRUG TESTING: The City accepts the Special Magistrate's
acknowledgement that the Union and the City have agreed to the list of positions within the
bargaining unit that should be subject to a random drug testing program. However, because the
Special Magistrate did not identify which one of the two sets of contract language proposed by
the City and Union would be used for the rest of this drug testing article, the City must reject the
Special Magistrate's suggestion that the parties are in full agreement on this issue.
r
ACCREDITATION PAY AND CERTIFICATION PAY: The City accepts the Special
Magistrate's recommendation that no accreditation pay should be paid to any bargaining unit
members. However, the City's rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendation that a $50.00
certification pay should be paid to Code Compliance Officer and Administrators who maintain
certain certifications, as the City does not believe that such certification pays are warranted in
these circumstances.
TEN (10) HOUR SHIFT FOR LIFEGUARDS AND POOL GUARDS: The City rejects
the Special Magistrate's recommendations that ten (10) hour shifts be implemented for a full
year for both life guards and pool guards. This suggestion is an unnecessary impediment to the
City's exercise of its management right to determine appropriate shifts and coverage, and it
would have a negative impact on operational efficiencies, as well as an increased cost due to the
additional staffing required to cover the shifts.
OSHA/ASBESTOS REMOVAL PROCEDURES: The City would accept the Special
Magistrate's suggestion that none of the OSHA requirements should be incorporated into the
collective bargaining agreement. However, the City rejects the Special Magistrate's suggestion
that the City should adopt some type of a practice inspecting each building and then write a note
to employees to insure them that each building is asbestos free. In fact, the City is already doing
all inspections and reports required by law.
r
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT: The City rejects the Special Magistrate's
recommendation because although it states that the language should remain status quo in the
contract, his description of the status quo is inaccurate.
{M2266639;1)
Honorable June Farrell
~ June 16, 2005
Page 4
TRIPLE TIM:E AND ONE-HALF PAY: The City rejects the Special Magistrate's
recommendation that the Triple time and one-half pay benefit should be kept for certain
employees who work on holidays, because such a benefit is excessively bloated and unnecessary.
REPORTING PAY: The City rejects the recommendation to keep this language because
it is obsolete and unnecessary for this agreement.
PAY FOR PERFORMANCE: The City rejects the status quo recommendation because it
believes that the employees in this bargaining unit should be in that Pay for Performance system
like the GSA and AFSCME bargaining unit members, and many other non-union City
employees.
CONTRACTING OUT: The City rejects the status quo suggestion on this issue in part
because the maintenance of that language could cause operational inefficiencies. In addition,
the present language is unnecessarily broad and more than the law requires in part because the
contract already provides ample protection for employees who might be laid off in the event of
the use of an outside contractor.
,--
EMT LIFEGUARD PAY: The City accepts the recommendation that the status quo (the
5% EMT pay supplement) should be maintained.
Very truly yours,
AKERMAN SENTERFITT
~~c. ~.L
James C. Crosland
cc: Mr. Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
Ms. Linda Gonzalez, Labor Relations Director
Robert S. Sugarman, Esquire
~
{M2266639; I}
EXHIBIT B
~
The issues regarding the terms of the contract are somewhat complex.
The Union's position is that the Commission may resolve the various impasse issues for
three (3) years, i.e., for fiscal years 03-04, 04-05 and 05-06. Thereafter, should the
bargaining unit employees fail to ratify the three year proposed agreement, only the terms
contained in the first fiscal year (03-04) would go into effect.
The City's position is that the Commission may rule on the three years noted above, and
impose terms only for the first fiscal year (03-04), should the employees fail to ratify the
three (3) year package, as the union contends, or may, in its discretion, resolve impasse
items only for the first fiscal year (305-04). These issues will no doubt be discussed
further at the impasse hearing.
,~
~
EXHIBIT
t l?J
EXHIBIT C
-
-
,-
CWA Proposal
CWA proposal costs
IYear 1 Y'earZ Year 3
03/04 04/05 05/06
Base Wage = 3.0% 3.0% 3.5%
YTD 2003 (Base wage without temps)
Impasse Item
1. Term of Al.?:reement
2. Wal!es $483,434 $497,937 $598,354 $1,579,725
3. Pension*
*Recurrinl.?: cost for 20-30 years
Net increase: Rule of 70, Tier B benefits to Tier A, Drop,
survivor ship benefits from 50% to 100%, disability
benefit to 75% of earnings, and non-duty to 35%, add 2
years to each members for credited service, bring in all
40IA employees with their account balances (18.45%)
CWA and (18.27%) All GE
$3,179,666 $3,179,666
4. a) Health Insurance $739,740 $739,740
b) Increases to cost for other City employees for Health
Plan $414,018 $414,018
c) Increases to the Trust plan due to increases in overall
City Dlan $80,438 $80,438
$1,234,196 $1,234,196
5. Election of Remedies
6. Union Time Bank $38,603 $38,603
7. Cleaninl.?: Allowance (new DroDosal bv Union 3/16) $91,920 $91,920
8. Union Conventions (2 conventions) $1,715 $1,715
9. Promotions $172,000 $172,000
10. Increase sick/vacation leave accrual (liability only)
11. Sick time sell back (withdrawn 3/16)
12. Temporary Employees
13. Random Drug Testin!!
14. Accreditation Pay $286,000 $286,000
Certification Pay $27,300 $27,300
15. Lifeguard Schedulinl.?: $230,099 $230,099
Pool Guard Schedulin!! $232,370 $232,370
16. OSHA! Asbestos Standard Removal procedures
lan!!ua!!e
17. Labor Management Meetinlls
18. Tuition Reimbursement Lan!!ua!!e
19. Overtime (3.5 times) nav for call-in on dav off
20. ReDortinl! Pay lanllUage
21. Reimbursement for Hats
22. Pay for Performance
Imoasse Item
23. Contractinl! out
24. EMT Lifeguard Day (5% to 9%) $76,634 $76,634
25. Uniforms
Total: $483,4341 $497,9371 $6,168,8571 $7,150,228
I
II
EXHIBIT
C~
EXHIBIT 0
,-.-
-
-
....
:~~Q')Q')IO
..,M.~::N~
0.......,. .C'!. .
-100..............0
!:....MMtA-M
0tA-tA-tA- tA-
...
s
o
Z
...
IV
Gl
>-
en
::I
o
'5O
e
Q.
...
Gl
>
o
en
Gl
en
IV
Gl
...
CJ
.5
CJ
..
IV
E
.s
::I
<C
"C
it) "a;
c
~
c"C
"....,........cocoo
cf~~co.......o
IV 'ii .n M C!. ~ ...,..
...,.,.COCO~~~
eQlMCOtA-tA-tA-
M,.tA-tA-
C .
> f
u.u
.5
~ en en
lii 0) >- ,g
~m~lIl~
E:ts:t:::~.9
,.=E:ii)'E~
EliiO"cO)....
Ql0)2ouo
-J:(/)...JC"'"
""'C")
coco
o C")
""
.mN
...........
tA- ER-
"
C
1II
M...,.
Qo
.... -
- ......
00
.... ....
"
'(ij
0..
<10......
<10 N
CO 10
"...:
Q')C")
mN
~M
tA- tA-
III
c
,Q
:i
.0
';::
C
o
U
c
o
'00 -
C 1II
0)0
Cl.1-
~
U
Iii
o
l-
v
co
co.
<10
10
m
C")
ER-
0)
0)
>-
o
C")Q.
o E
........~
.... 0)
tA-1Il
1II
0)
....
U
C
-L-'---l-.' .
I ' i
, i
i
0)
~.
.2i
0..:
ffi Ei
10 O)i
r-: Qj :
tA- Ill.
1II
0)
....
U
C
.......<100
III CO.......Q')
.... C")Mm
..!!lO<o<o.n
etA-OCON
o ~v.~
.... M M
ER- tA- tA-
III
0)
0)
>-
o
Q.
E
0)
<(
~
U
.......
N
...,.
NM...,.IO
0000
0000
~C!~~
~ or- T""" ..-
........ ....... -... ........
0000
T""" ..- T""" .....-
c
o
'00
c
0)
Cl. c
~~
,- ::J
U.o
-"i::
1II-
_ C
o 0
I- CJ
III
~
"
:iE
""')
....
.E
OJ
III
III
1II
0..
E
........
III
0)
III
1II
~
U
C
U
:;::::;
1II
E
o
-
::J
~
C")
o
o
N
III
c
.Q
~
o
Cl
0)
.s
<(
~
y
III
C
o
:;::::;
1II
Qi
0:::
....
o
.0
1II
...J
.-
...J
W
0:::
0:::
o
!Xl
:s
<i:
:iE
:)
J:
.-
u..:
EXHIBIT
J
D
B
D
EXHIBIT E
r
cu
~ cu
cu>
Q.O
""''Q.
~ E
ucu
In
cu
cu
>
o
-
Q.
=h:~
r
~
<(
(f)
19
.............
LL
LL
<(
.,a...J.........
(flO:-
00
U~
UJ
-:E
COu
(fl(f)
OLL
0.<(
0.8
1...-0
a..QJ
~
<(~
SE
U~
in
o
NI
~ IIIlt
res 0
CU >-
>- u.
IIIlt
o
.... I
~ M
res 0
~~
-
res
"'"
o
I-
\0
o
MI
~ in
res 0
CU >-
>-u.
r
/
I
*
U"l
""'"
i"'-
~
..-i
-l::A-
~ ;;,.
!il
i"'-
N
""'"
co
N
N
,
o
U"l
..-i
,
i"'-
-l::A-
1-
OJ
>
o
0'1
C
.;::
1-
::::J
U
OJ
1-
i"'-
U"l
CO
00
~
..-i
,
~
-l::A-
OJ
1-
C'O
Vl
....
Vl
o
U
i"'-
M
0"\,
i"'-
0"\
""'"
-l::A-
""'"
M
""'",
M
CO
""'"
-l::A-
-
fa
u.l
o
e.
o
l-
e.
cC
3:
u
EXHIBIT
I E
EXHIBIT F
~
~
-
-
<
-
--
o
''It
tn "'C CII
c: .~ ~
to ~ c:~
c:: '" 0 ;;0
:a~:::
c: U :: ~
o c:.2
"_ :J i6
tn
c:
CU
c..
.s::: v
CJ ~~
to N....
CU lIl~;;o
N\"'C ....<<
.... (I) ~ ~ tS
"- \;:: c: u
E .V; 0 M
7ZQ\M
to :a (3 ..... Q\
"- - ~ g ;:::
~ u ....CC.: ~ ;;0
~VI
:i:O:::
U~
VI~
I.L. I-
<0
"-
o
c:
o
tn
"i:
to CII
....
Q.u:
E ItS
o CII
o .~
-
o
a..
Ll"l
Ll"l
00
Ll"l ..0
I I
<Ceo
L- L-
QJ QJ
~~
00
Ll"l ..0
I I
<Ceo
L- L-
QJ QJ
~~
o
Ll"l
QJ
onc
l'Cl l'Cl
L- -
o a.
00..
,.....0
~ct:
00
QJ..c
- ~
::J .-
ct: ~
....,
c:
(I)
E
(I)
....
:i:i CII
CIIon
0:::<
QJ
~
l'Cl
:.s
QJ
E
E
VI
L-
l'Cl
QJ
>-
Ll"l
~
~
="-'
u VI
QJ
VI >
~ 0
QJ~
>-~
>-
~o
'"""
I I
I
<co~
L- L-:;i
QJ QJ VI
~~~
>-
C
l'Cl
a.
QJ
~
VI
-
VI
L-
l'Cl
QJ L-
>->-
........
o~
'"""0
'"""
VI
L-
l'Cl
QJ-
>-N
..0
Ll"lQJ
on I
I l'Cl I
< < CO ~
L-
QJ
~
L-:;i
VI QJ VI
~~~
VI
L-
to
QJ
>-
o
'"""
on
c:
.-
....,
'"
CII
>
VI
"'Oc
C L-
::J
l'Cl~_
VI QJ QJ
C L- QJ
o~~
:;icc
QJ l'Cl
EE~
'C ~ ::J
~Vlon
C QJ 0
o > c
u-S_
~~
00
COCO
I I
<CO
L- L-
QJ QJ
~~
~~
00
0' CO
I I
<ceo
L- L-
QJ QJ
~~
~
o
0'
E
~C:"'"
E .52 5
.- '" 0
><C:E
~ 8.<
<
........
Z
~
o
~
o
O~
'"""0
I I
<CO
L- L-
QJ QJ
~~
~
x VI
l'Cl QJ
o E-&
~ .-
~'O..cc
g ~ >< ,9
QJOQJ~
"""Cl'Cl
E "'OL- .~
'ZQJO~
L- QJ ~ VI
QJU>-VI
>Xl'Cl.!9
OQJa.u
CII
-
.!) CII
~ E
o .-
.- ....,
'" ....
c: CII
CII >
a.. 0
<
........
Z
~ "'0 ~
Ll"lQJLl"l
. "'0 .
'"""C'"""
I ::J I
<&.co
n; E n;
~8~
"'0
QJ
"'0
C
::J
o
a.
E
o
u
~
Ll"l
.
N
"'0
QJ
"'0
C
::J
o
a.
E
o
u
~
Ll"l
N
....,
c:
CII
E
~<
~5
o:::u
>-
L-
l'Cl
-
l'Cl
VI
~
o
~
M
........
N
..0
..0
~ -
~ ~N 0
...... 0O'~-q-
E ~ ~ ~ .- QJ
::JC l'ClL-Vl..c
E ..oQJ ~ "'i6 QJ l'Cl ~
.- E VI a. QJ 0
~~_"'Oog~
E '5 0 ~ 8 ~ .~
l'Cl 5 8 ~ o~:.s 0.
o ELl"lOO' L-a.
~ ~U~Ol'Cl
QJ
0.
E
L-
o
LLJ
~~
I.L.~
~ .-
0'Q)
~c
o QJ
Ll"l..o
I "'0
_QJL-
"""::JQJ
L-L-..c
QJUon
~~:c:
L-
o
LLJ
~~
I.L.~
~ .-
0'Qi
~c
oQJ
..0..0
I "'0
"'" QJ L-
...... ::J QJ
L-L-..c
QJUon
~~:c:
'Vi
L- L-
L- QJ L- QJ
0-&0-&
LLJ'- LLJ'-
~~ ~~
I.L.~I.L.~
"+-.... '+-....
o 'Qi 0 'Q)
~ C ~ C
Ll"l QJ 0 QJ
,.......0 ..0..0
I "'0 I "'0
-QJcoQJ
"""::J ::J
L- L- L- L-
QJ U QJ U
~~~~
L-~
o ._
>- ~
L- .-
~l'Cl~
C _ QJ
QJ l'Cl C
t: VI QJ
::J"'O..o
UQJ"'O
~"'OQJL-
o C ::J QJ
.....0 QJ L- ..c
O""-~Uon
Ll"l >< U ._
CO QJ l'Cl..c
"'C
CII ~
...., ....,
CIIU::::
u CII.::;:
.- c: ....
~ c: ~
CII 0 .-
~uc
EXHIBIT
I F
p """,. '0 ~ 2-
r-
,-..
.--
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
Differences Between Tier A And Tier B Benefits
.
>TierA TierS
.. , . . .
I General Employees System I
1. Pensionable Compensation Total Pay Basic Pay
2. FAME 2 year average jJ year average
3. Multiplier 3% for first 15 years, then 3% for all years; cap of 80%
4%; cap of 90%
4. Normal Retirement Date Age 50 with 5 years of Age 60 with 10 years of
service service
5. Service Connected Disability 75% of FAME 60% of FAME
6. 100% Vesting 5 years 10 years
I Unclassified System I
1. Pensionable Compensation Base Pay Base Pay
2. FAME 1 year average, /3 year average
3. Multiplier 4% to 10/1/92, then 3%; 3% for all years; cap of 80%
cap of 80%
4. Normal Retirement Date Age 50 with 5 years of Age 60 with 10 years of
service service
5. Service Connected Disability 50% of FAME minimum 60% of FAME minimum
6. Non-Service Disability 25% of FAME minimum 35% of FAME minimum
7. 100% Vesting 5 yea rs 10 years
EXHIBIT
I f
p ~ ",-e 2.. (.\ f 2-
EXHIBIT G
,--
,--
r-
Performance Appraisal increase comparison by civlian bargaining unit
Union Increase Amount P .A. Score
CWA (Steps) 3 or 4% 50 or above
AFSCMEjGSA 4% 90 or above
3% 89 - 80
2% 79 - 60
EXHIBIT
I ~
EXHIBIT H
SUbject: Sunpost article - BAC meeting - Tuesday, June 21,2005
(published Thursday, June 23, 2005)
Prioritizing Needs
,.,--
Budget Advisory Committee Discusses Goals and City Employee Salary Demands
"Even if we're swimming in money now, five years from now we might be swimming in compost... .. - Marc Jacobson, Budget
Advisory Committee
By Omar Sommereyns
Staff Writer
Preparations for the upcoming 2005-06 Miami Beach budget and the contentious negotiations between the city manager and a
municipal workers union over wages and benefits negotiations were the subjects oflast Tuesday's Budget Advisory Committee.
"We're about to look at the new budget," said Committee Chairperson Jeryl "Deede" Weithorn, "so I want this committee to be aware
ofthe city's priorities."
Those so-called priorities are bullet-pointed statements culled from responses to the $100,000 Hay Group surveys (with input from
Beach residents, businesses and community groups) and summarized in a document approved by the Miami Beach City Commission
and distributed at the committee meeting.
"These are roadmaps for what enhancements will get funded," added Weithorn. "Our job on this committee is to make sure the city is
able to sustain what it builds. You look at two things in a budget: the status quo and enhancements. We need to make sure the
enhancements go towards the recommended priorities."
The priorities document lists five "visionary" goals the city needs to accomplish (and the budget should take into account) for the next
fiscal year:
,,-
* A "cleaner and safer" environment. Examples given were to keep the crime rate "at or below national trends" and to "improve
cleanliness of Miami Beach rights of way."
*Having a "beautiful and vibrant, mature stable residential community," Le., reducing the local homeless population and protecting
the "historic building stock."
* Staying a "cultural, entertainment and tourism capital" - that is, improving the "availability and accessibility of major events."
*Becoming an "international center for innovation in culture, recreation and business." Translation: Become more business-friendly.
*Have "well-improved infrastructure" by improving parking and traffic flow.
Not mentioned during the discussion was Mayor David Dermer's proposed tax-rebate system for homeowners (the Urban Impact
Compensation Fund) that would cost the city between $653,920 and $3.3 million. "We haven't taken a position on [that] yet,"
Weithom said. "It will come as part of the proposed budget, but we don't comment on a separate item until we see the whole budget."
The proposed budget should be available by the end of July, Weithorn said.
Prior to discussing the city's "visionary" goals, the committee debated a more problematic issue. The local union chapter of the
Communication Workers of America (CW A), representing 450 municipal employees ranging from city clerks to lifeguards, had been
bargaining with City Manager Jorge Gonzalez over a new three-year wages and benefits contract until an impasse was declared last
November. In July 2004, CW A had rejected a wage package offered by the city since, among other issues, the union's demands for
equal pension benefits and the opportunity to control its own health trust were not met.
.-
A neutral third party, John McCollister, was hired to mediate a resolution. In a report released this week, he recommended the CW A
receive pension improvements and be allowed to form its own health insurance plan, like the Beach chapters of the Fraternal Order of
the Police (FOP) and the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF). However, the city rejected McColl' , c mmendations.
EXHIBIT
I li
v~&:.p \........-:)
In a letter to June Farrell of the Public Employees Relations Commission in Tallahassee, James Crosland, the attorney representing the
city during the arbitration, wrote, "As an initial matter, it should first be noted that the cost of the CW A demands (and the special
magistrate's recommendations) greatly exceeds what is fiscally prudent and completely disregards the interest of the city's taxpayers.
__ "In addition," he continued, "the recommendations were blatantly slanted in favor of the union with respect to many of the city's
management rights. In some cases, the recommendations ignored or simply failed to mention or recognize the city's positions and
explanations. Finally, [the) report contained a number of inaccuracies and inconsistent statements."
The city rejected the proposed wage increases suggested by McCollister - $483,434 for year one (2003-04), $497,937 for year two
(2004-05) and $598,354 for year three (2005-06) - because "the amounts are higher than the city believes to be appropriate. In
addition, the special magistrate refused to consider relevant comparative (and statutorily required) wage and benefits data provided by
the city."
The city also rejected pension changes because the cost is "excessive and unnecessary," as well as the creation of a separate health
trust since it would "have an adverse financial impact on both the city and the remaining participants in the city's healthcare plans."
Overall, said Crosland at the BAC meeting, the union's proposal would cost $7,150,228. "They could have had what they were asking
for [originally]," he said, "but held out to get [things] that are unreasonable."
"What reasoning does the union claim to warrant for these changes, other than the fact that they want more money?" asked BAC
member Jonathan Fryd.
No representatives from CW A were present, but Crosland responded with some background data on how CW A (and other unions)
experienced cutbacks in the early 1990s due to the city's financial troubles. However, now that FOP and IAFF had their benefits
restored, CW A wants equal treatment.
"The union's main theme is... now that - to use one of their phrases - 'you're swimming in money,' it's time for you to give back to
us," Crosland said.
--
After listening to Crosland recap the impasse situation, BAC members sided with the city.
"If they say things like we're 'swimming in money,' I'm offended as a taxpayer," said Fryd. "The Simpsons of Miami Beach are
paying more taxes than ever because assessments are going up...andthey're barely holding onto houses they've been living in for
years."
"Fundamentally," added member Marc Jacobson, "the city's money goes to taxpayers... Even if we're swimming in money now, five
years from now, we might be swimming in compost, but these benefits, like Old Man River, will keep on rolling."
Jacobson made a motion advising the mayor and commission to consider how the CW A proposal would impact the city long-term-
directly and indirectly.
When informed of the city's position on McCollister's recommendations, Richard McKinnon, president ofCWA Local 3178, told the
SunPost, "We were disappointed. We thought that in the face of an earnest, objective party, the city manager would finally be able to
see the unfairness of his positions and negotiate in good faith using the recommended solutions."
The city will appeal all recommendations provided by the special magistrate. The next step is a public hearing before the City
Commission.
Added McKinnon, "Working families of CW A Local 3178 will have to wait a little longer for justice and fairness to be finally meted
out by the City Commission."
,,--.
EXHIBIT
I ~
V~tit :; o~ ,4.
EXHIBIT I
,--
City proposed
contract
language for
CWA collective
~
bargaining
agreement
~.
'",
EXHIBIT
II
.--
--
-
-
;::,
o
-
U)
o
(.)
r::
o
.Ui
.!!!
E
E
o
(.)
'-
.g
r::
o
E
U)
o
0..
Q)
U)
U)
~
E r::
- 0
~;;
C3 .Ui
o
0..
Q)
U)
U)
~
E '-
- ctl
~~
(.)(of)
"C
Q)-
cO
'Q)1::
~enctl
....Q)-
Q) ... (J)
Eo.c
Q) Q).-
Q).c >-
E C,o~
Q)<(=Q.)en
==_="Cc
Q) 0 en Ol.Q
U) E"'c-
U) '- Q):C .~
C'CIc. I-Q.) e rn '0
:::SOlO)
.5<r-8~~
co
..... (of) CO 0)
<r- (of) C'\I (of)
..... "C:t 0) 0
~C"i6co
o~~~~
&9- &9- &9- &9- '
(J)-
O)(J)
I .~8
>
_ ca 0
,-enz
ca
Q.) --
>- ca.c
'- ...
ctlca
Q) Q)
>->-
cf. cf.
cf.LO~LO
o .0 .
<r-(of)(of)
... '-
ca ca
Q) 0)
>->-
(J)
Q.)
0)
ca
~
-
(of)
...
ctl
Q.)
>-
-
-
(of)
'-
ca
0)
>-
-
<r-
0)
.....
LO
(of)
&9-
I
-
(J)
o
o
..-:.
u
0.
E
:::s
"C -gca
0) ca C
;;::: <( 0)>
'en
(J) <r- .-
ca oOl
, , "C:t 0)
'-' 0 .0
,~ --
>- ~.~
.s .Q Q.)
~ ~ ~
-;;; ~c.
~ 5 E .
>- uO)c
o 0. I .Q
C. 0 Q.) .~
E en Ol U
<(0) ocaQ.)
_:::s"'O
... "C <( Ol 0)
.~ Q.) <r- S.c
1-;;::: o~ca
I ~ "C:t0(J
I-ca c-o
O ' , .- "0 >
'-' (J) "0 ~
Q) "0 0) <( .:
- Q.) 0)
.0_ >-. Q.)
cao oCE
5 E c..Q :;:;
'en e E ~ ID
co. Q)0)5
O)~c~o.
~ 0 .Q 0 .~ -g
::z<(~<(~8
ca Q.) _ 0)
0) ..-:...-:. 0...-:. (J) (J)
>- ca.c (J
c
o
'Ci)
c
0)
a.
C'\I
c
en
c
o
:;:; ~
0. C
Oen 0
'- Q.) c
~~ :2
o 0 ~
Q.)"C.. -
Ol E ..c: :.c
c Q.)::: ro
~.9~ 0)
(J (J)..c: ~
oCQ)
-~~ -g
~ c.:;:; <( ca
o C ~ <r- '"P
00-
'- .- ... "C:t ca
.E a.S '- 0
Q)OcoaJ
Ol'-O.....
ca 0):;:; 0) 0)
:::s~uc c
0) 0 Q):;:; C
c-- en 0
ca '- Q) Q.) (J)
-SQ)> Q)
~O)Eroa.
:9 Ol:;:; 0) 0)
XCQ)>-_
Q)caco ca
- ..c: 0 c
u.. ~ <r- E
"-:'O)"-:'~
ca .cuW
Q)
u
c
~
:::s
(J)
c
..c:
:::
ca
Q)
:c
(of)
-
0.
Q.)
(J
x
0)
0) en
EO)
:;:; .~
=Ci5
ca Q.)
0) E
"'0_
~c
(J Q.)
C E
o Q.)
-0)
-ca
.::t:.c
C ca
ca~
.0,
0) '-
EE
:;:;ca
c--l
0"0
.- c
:sca
(J) (J)
'- c
:::::l.Q
0-
..c: .~
-
00
OOl
C'\IO)
<r-C
(J)
.~
"0
0)
E
0)
c::
-
o
c
o
U
0)
w
.::t:.
C
ca
aJ
0)
E
i=
c
,Q
c:
::)
"C:t
LO
.::t:.
C
ca
.0
0)
E
:;:;
c
.Q
c
::)
-
o
1::
ca
0.
(J)
ca
"C
Q.)
"0
:::s
(3
c
Q.)
E
i=
(J)
c
o
:;:;
c
0)
>
c
o
o
c
.Q
c
::)
'-
ca
Q.)
>-
'-
Q.)
0.
o
00
"C:t
C'\I
.....
6f7
I
Q.)
(J
c
ca
~
o
<(
Ol
.~
C
ca
0)
o
0)
-
ca
c
.~
W
0)
(J
c
~
o
<(
Ol
C
C
ca
Q.)
o
CO
o
:::::l
o
(J)
:::::l
-
ca
-
en
(J)
0)
'i::
~
o
a.
E
Q.)
-
-
o
0)
(J)
:::s
"'0
Q.)
~
E
c
::)
o
:::s
o
en
:::s
-
ca
-
en
(J)
c
o
:;:;
o
E
e
a.
c en
o 0)
:;:; 0)
ca >-
~ ~
~_ E
(Jcaw
._ :::::l '>.
en t; L-
Q.) (J ~
en ca 0
ca Q.) a.
~ > E
(J ctl Q.)
,SQ.)I-
00 0)
.....
---
-
~
o
-
II)
o
o
--
C)
C Q) .
"CC.$
:Ja>...J
gci5~
:'::"a>=
~ .s ...:
o .... ,.,
:;;()ro
CO ~:J
U = C)
-.::....a>
'en 0 ~
(J)16...J
"- CO.... ~
_0 -a>a>
u 0.. a>
S ~O.5
~-~
E CO .5 r-
II) (J) ~ ....
o uo..Q)
Q. = E ..c:
CD .go~u)
II) 0.. () CO en
= _..: ~a..
c. CO 0 .- ~
E ...._0
- S .e ~ ..:=
-. ~a> a>~
::l;; c' o....c: - cO
U .Ci) :;; 0 ~ r- C)
o ~ (J) ~w CO
Q. - C (J) a.. ;;!
.... ~ 0 ._ ~.
w ,.,,:;; 0 ~ C
II) :J CO (J) CO
lI)....u ~"C-
ns "C .- = Co ....
C.E5~:J:J
E OE-C,9o-
-:'"CE..c:-g~
~ Sou 0._ .Q)......
.-... a> 0 (J)
o 0::: () r- a.. => 0:::
c
o
.;
II)
E
E
o
o
--
C)
C
:;;
(J)
a>
r-
C)
:J
....
EO
CD E
= 0
CD"C
II) C
II) CO
nsO:::
c.
EO
- ~
"C
ffi~
CO
ca..
.Q C
16 .Q
~ +-'
"CCO
a> .2
....-
u'-
u1::
<(a>
()
~
~
....
:J
o
..c:
o
~
o
C
"C
C
CO
C)
C
:J
"C
a>
..c:
u
(J)
"E
CO
:J
C)
~
C
o
~(J)
:= "E
:9 CO
x :J
Q)C,9
-
-0
C 0
a> a..
E ....
~.e
CO (J)
C=
CO.-
~~
-
u
a>
'(i)
0:::
....
CO
a>
>-
....
a>
0..
co
~
co
0)
~
&'7
I
o
:J
o
(J)
:J
-
CO
-
en
-
en
a>
E
:;;
~
N
-
CO
Sw
'en ~
.- ()
>en
e
0..LL.
a><(
-a>
co~
c=
'E >-
._ CO
-0..
w__
"E ~
a> 0
a>E en>-
-ga> Q)CO
enco:J ~ E"C
o>"-:J :;;c
o +-,0 c' ..c I.l) 0
o ~Eco E 'C
a.. ~ ~.-
- g ~ 0::: en a> -- ...:
"E.5 <( "C ~ 0::: ~ Q)E CO
CO - ""::;. ....:J ~, U
:J :J <l.. CO"C C CO .- ....
C)-g J:"C a> E ~~.e
~.J:: en C u '5 c' > >-
::ici5 O~ ~r-j 0 ~
N ~ ~ LO
~ ~ ~ ~
0..
a>
-
(J)
-
~
o
~
I
~
o
~
--
a>
C)
CO
:J
C)
C
~
>-
CO
0..
C)
C
:e
o
0..
~
a>
-
CO
C
E
w
CO
....
.e
o
LO
-
o
"C
CO
a>
-
(J)
C
LO
I""-
o
-
~
o
u
en
E
:J
E
C
E
Q) a>
C)en
C CO
CO ~
..c:u
() .5
a>
en
CO
.... ~
.eu
a>.5
>- ....0..
CO oa>
a.. u_
en en
C)
C a> E.2
1:: C) :J -
OCO EcoE
0..:J .-
a> Ql .5 .9
o:::c~:J
~ CO
co I""-
~ ~
~
o
>-
~
o
-
-
:J
o
C)
C
:;;
U
CO
....
-
C
o
u
(J)
en
:J
u
(J)
"C
o
-
>-
-
i:3
....
.e
C
o
:;;
CO
.2> en
-c
.co
0._
-
:!::::co
E.a
::i . en
-
:J
o
C)
C
:;;
U
CO
....
-
C
o
()
co
~
....
CO
a>
>-
....
a>
0..
N
N
~
I""-
&'7
I
a>
C)
CO
:J
C)
C
~
..c:
-
'3:
o
:J
0"
en
:J
-
CO
-
en
LO
o
-
co
E
e
-
en
E a>
.... C)
~ ~
:J C
'0: ~
....Co..
a> 0'-
.c::::~
EO....
:J P ~
C a> C
Q) - 0
ucoo..
:J.5 en
"CE"C
a>="C
o:::w<(
..-:...-:.. .-:..
ro .l:l to)
>-
CO
0..
"E
CO
:J
C)
~
::i
r-
~
w
en
E
....
~
C
=>
0)
~
o
N
::;:
<
on
9.
~
;0
u
.g
vi
o
N
N
.;,
C
o
:~
e
e
o
u
-
.a
~
;.j
~
u
j
]
~
~
a
.2
.5
'6
lI'
3
<
~
'"
.~
c
'i
"il
<>(
.8
.5
;:j
~
<>(
o
""
::5
~
~
.;;
WAGE PROPOSAL & PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
,.--
ARTICLE 8
WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS
Section 8.1 Wages
Wage Ifterease.
A) fiseal Year 2999/2991
1) Ef&ea'.re with the pit}'roll allre of SeptemBer 25, 2000, there shllll be llR Ileress the Ballra
'luge merellse ef fotu pereeat (1%). la erau to ob1'll:iR Ilay retrollca'\"e wllge merellsc,
bllrglliniRg I:Iftit membus must be effl!310yeel with the City oa the rlltiacll!ioR allre ef the
2000 2003 eollectfve bllrgftiniag agreemeat or hll'\"e retired from the City Ilfter October 1,
2000. (See .'-,ppeftatx :., E"hibits 1,2)
2) Effeet:tve Jul} 16, 2001, the Bllrgaining untt employees '\I\i~O Ilre m the ae'\l\i elllssiaell!iafts
listed m iteffi. (B, 2) BelO~ shllll reeei.e Il 0.75% merease in au:it: rllre ef I'll}. (See ~\ppeflatx
.\, EJ[&bit 5)
B) Fiseal Year 2991/2992
1)
Effective with the payroll allte ef Seprember 21, 2001, there shall be llft aeress the bellra
wit!';e merellse of four pel'eeat (1%-). (See .'.ppeRatx :., Exhibits 3 & 1)
Effeetive September 21, 2001, employees ",he Ilre ia the fien dllSsiaelltlOflS listed belo",'
shall be plllceD. i:a the follow'it1g dassiaelltiefts/rllft!';es ia the Pit}' pIaR effecw;e SeptemBer 21,
2001, in Ilecordllftee with the folleM:ag table. (See Appeacl::iJ( .\, Exhibit 5)
--
2)
NEW CVI/-.. CLt\SSIFICATIONS
CLASSIFICATIONS RANCE
Crime Seefie T edmteilla I M
Crime Seefie Teehnietllft II 34
Poltt:e Fleet Specialist ~
Poliee Photographer M
Paliee Reeords T eehmeillft ~
Proper~ & Evideaee T echait:illa I ~
Property & E~aeflee Teehffieiaa II ~
Puhlie Sllfety Speetlllist ~
J)
Effeettve :.pril. 8, 2002, Steps .\, B, aaa C eft the pnor eofttiCllCt srep pIlla '\I\i'iR be dtffitaated.
Post 11 /1/98 empIe} ees MIl. re-eei, e1:hree (3) steps aBo';e step D; Past 11 / 1/99 employees
will reeey;e fwa (2) steps lloo'Ve step D; Post 11/1/00 thr6l:lgft 11/3/01 empIeyees will
reeeive efte (1) step aee.e step D. (See .\ppeftatx .\, ExhiBits 6, 7 & 8)
--
CWA-I
WAGE PROPOSAL & PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
,-..
C)
Fiselll Year 2992.'2993
1) Eff-eelive with the PltYfClR cllite of September 23, 2002 there shaH be lift lIef8SS the B8l1rd
iae.relise 6f feU[ pefeeftt (1%). (See ;\ppl:fiatx .\, Exhibits 9 & 10)
2) Effeeli. e ~>icll the plIYloR dllte of SeptemBer 23, 2002, the reelllssifit:llli6fislis lIgreed shllR
ftke
effeet. ~See },ppefiatx ;\" Exhibit 11)
Effective upon ratification of this Agreement for fiscal year 2004-2005. bargaining unit employees shall be paid
a one-time lump sum payment in the amount of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the employee's base salary
which amount shall not change the salary ranges. shall not be added to the employee's base salary and shall not
be pensionable.
Effective with the payroll date of October 3. 2004 there shall be an across the board wage increase of three
percent (3%) and the minimum and maximum of the step plan will also be adjusted by 3%.
Effective with the payroll date of October 9 2005 there shall be an across the board wage increase of three
and one-half percent (3.5%), and the minimum and maximum of the step plan will also be adjusted by 3.5%..
,-..
Section 8.18 Step and Longevity Increases.
a) Starting Salary - New employees will start at the minimum step of the pay range.
b) First (1st) Step Increase -Newly hired employees shall receIve a step Increase after
satisfactory completion of the probationary period.
c) Anniversary Date Increase - Step increases shall become effective on the payroll period
commencing on the employee's anniversary date. A step increase shall be awarded based
upon the employee receiving a slllisfllet6fjf 50 score of 75 or higher on his/her merit
evaluation during that rating period. Anniversary date shall be defined as the date that an
employee completes probation or the effective date when promoted to a higher
classification.
d)
Longevity Pay - Longevity increases shall become effective on the payroll period
commencing on the employee's date of hire. Longevity Pay - Longevity shall be calculated
by multiplying the employees' earnings at the end of each pay period by the percentage of
longevity pay as determined by years of service per the following table:
,-..
CWA - 2
WAGE PROPOSAL & PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
Completed Years of Service * Percentage Increase
7 Years 2.5%
10 Years 5.0%
15 Years 7.5%
20 Years 10.0%
25 Years 11.0%
..---
* TIlls does not include time taken as unpaid leave.
This entire provision shall be effective on April 8, 2002.
..---
..---
CW A - 3
PENSION
-
[CITY PENSION PROPOSAL: Promotees may elect to Remain in Classified Plan]
The City agrees to change the pension plan, after this agreement is ratified, to ?rovide
that in a case where an employee who is thereafter promoted to a position that is in the
unclassified pension plan, the promoted employee may elect to stay in the classified
pension plan.
--
~
PENSION
-
[CITY PENSION PROPOSAL: 401A Employees Can Elect to Start Over as new in Plan]
The City agrees to change the pension plan. after this agreement is ratified, to provide
that employees who previously elected to go into the 401A plan may have one more
opportunity, within the 90 days that immediately follow ratification of this agreement, to
elect to move into the General Employee's (classified) Pension Plan. Any employee who
elects to move into the General Employee's Pension Plan shall start accruing pension
service from the date the employee is moved into the Plan, with no credit for prior years
of service, and the City contribution to the 401A benefit shall cease.
r-
,-
PENSION
-
[CITY PENSION PROPOSAL: Overtime Eliminated as Pensionable Income for Tier A]
The pension plan shall be changed so that the overtime earnings for Tier A employees in
the General Emplovee's Pension Plan will be eliminated as pensionable income.
r--
.-
HEALTH INSURANCE
-
Section 8.12. Health Insurance The City shall continue to pro~/ide the present level of
medical, hospital, and dental benefits to bargaining unit members and their dependents, provided
that the Union may seek altemati','e CO~lerage, if legal; and provided further that such alternate
coverage, if obtained, does not result in increased cost to the City.
The cost of life insurance and health benefits provided by the City, or a carrier contracted by the
City, including any increases in such costs which become effective during the term of tms
Agreement, shall continue to be borne half (1/2) by the City and half (1/2) by the employee.
In the eyent of an increase in the cost of insurance, the City will notify the Union at least sixty
(60) days prior to the effective date of the increase (or fe':ler if the City had less notice) and the
parties ',vill meet at the request of the URion to discuss alternatives to alter the cost or benefits or
to secure a ne'''' carrier.
Domestic Partners as defined by the City shall be included in the City's Group Health Insurance
-
Plan effective December 29, 2001.
Upon recommendations by the Health Insurance Taskforce, either party can request to re open
this section concerning the percentages to be borne by the City and employees by giying notice
within sixty (60) days ofthe Taskforce report.
a) The City shall offer medical. dental. and life insurance benefit plans to full-time bargaining
unit employees and their legal dependents during the term of this Agreement. The City will
continue to pay at least fifty percent (50%) of the premium cost for eligible employees. The
City will to offer alternative plans as options for employees. The City may change
insurance carriers and/or the scope and level of benefits in any plan. The City also may
change the percentage of premium cost paid by the City (i.e., provided that it remains at
least 50%) from year to year for anyone or more of the optional plans available. depending
upon the scope and level of benefits available in each of the optional plans.
,;-
HEALTH INSURANCE
,--
b) The City agrees that it will not change the level of benefits during the term of this
Agreement without first consulting with the Group Insurance Board, or a labor-management
advisory committee created as a substitute for such Board. A bargaining unit employee may
serve on this Board/committee for as long as bargaining unit employees participate,
exclusively, in the City's group health insurance plan. In the event that the City materially
reduces the scope and level of benefits in the current base (PPO or HMO) plan then the
Union may request post-implementation impact bargaining.
c) Employees in the bargaining unit shall be eligible to participate in the City's flexible and
voluntary benefits plans, which may be modified by the City from time to time. The
flexible and voluntary benefits plans shall be administered by the City,
8.22. Retiree Health Insurance
a) The parties agree that any bargaining unit member who elected/s to participate in the 401-A
retirement program (in lieu of participating in the City's pension plan) shall be required to
- work at least ten (10) years before becoming eligible for any retiree health benefits from the
City.
b) The parties agree that any bargaining unit member who is eligible for retiree health benefits
from the City must make a one time irrevocable election to continue receipt of health
benefits via the City's plan at the time that the employee terminates City employment. The
parties also agree that if a member initially elects to continue under City health insurance,
but thereafter discontinues or is discontinued from such coverage, then the retiree may
resume coverage only at their own expense, without any employer contribution whatsoever.
,,--
I"'"'"'
ELECTION OF REMEDIES
Article 4
Grievance Procedure
Section 4.1 Purpose. - It is recognized that complaints and grievances may arise between the
bargaining agent and the employer or between the employer and anyone or more employees
concerning the application or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. The employer and
the bargaining agent desire that these grievances and complaints be settled in an orderly, prompt
and equitable manner so that the efficiency of the City of Miami Beach may be maintained and the
morale of employees not be impaired. Every effort will be made by the employer, employees, and
bargaining agent to settle the grievances at the lowest level of supervision. The initiation or
presentation of a grievance by an employee will not adversely affect his standing with the employer.
No reprisals of any kind will be made by agents of the City against the grievant(s) or the Union's
representatives by reason of such participation in the processing of their grievance. Similarly, the
Union, its officers or agents, shall not impede, malign, or delay the City or management's
--
representative in their duties during the investigation or processing of said grievance.
In order to investigate, discuss and process grievances, representatives and witnesses must request
permission 24 hours in advance (except in emergencies), and report their return to work upon
conclusion of the use oftime for grievance matters.
The parties agree that the grievance/arbitration process set forth in this Agreement shall be the sole
and exclusive method of resolving all grievances under this Collective Bargaining Agreement by
bargaining unit employees. Accordingly, employees covered by this Agreement shall no longer be
able to file an appeal or grievance via the City's Personnel Board procedure for any disciplinary
matter, and the parties agree that the Personnel Board shall not have any iurisdiction to hear any
grievance or appeal filed by the bargaining unit or any bargaining unit employee regarding
discipline or matters concerning the interpretation or application of this Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
.,.,.-
ELECTION OF REMEDIES
__ Section 4.3 Special Provisions.
a) The time limits set forth herein may be extended and/or modified by mutual written
agreement.
b) If the employer violates any time limits, the bargaining agent may advance to the next step
without waiting for the employer's response. If the Union, or the grievant(s) fail to initiate or move
the grievance to the first or next step of the grievance procedure, as set forth herein (time limits), it
shall be untimely and considered withdrawn.
c) The parties acknowledge that, as a principle of interpretation, employees are obligated to
work as directed while grievances are pending; except where the safety of a working condition or
health of the employee(s) is the basis of the grievance.
--
d) Aggrieved employees, a reasonable number of employees, not to exceed three (3), called as
witnesses, and a specifically designated Union representative, shall be allowed to be present at the
various formal steps of the grievance procedure, including arbitration. To the extent said employees
are on their regular work schedule, they may attend without loss of pay for those actual hours
during their regular work schedule. The Union shall notify the City Manager's designee for Labor
Relations of who it wishes to call, and then Management will schedule the witnesses to be available
as needed. The City will pay for no more than three (3) Union witnesses at an arbitration hearing.
If there are circumstances where more than three (3) witnesses are needed, the Union will make a
request to the City Manager's designee for Labor Relations, who will make the final decision.
e) The Union shall designate to the City the names of the seventeen (17) Union representatives,
plus one individual who shall be designated as the Chairman of the Grievance Committee, whose
function shall be to assist unit members in the processing of complaints and grievances under this
procedure. At Step I~ only one (1) union representative will be allowed at any grievance meeting.
At Step II & III~ only two (2) union representatives will be allowed at any grievance meeting.
r-
City of Miami Beach employees other than those designated Union representatives shall not be
granted time off from work without loss of pay for the processing of grievances with the exception
ELECTION OF REMEDIES
-
that the President or designee of the Union shall be granted time off with pay to attend and/or
participate in appeals to Step III and Arbitration.
Representatives shall be permitted during working hours without loss of pay to investigate, discuss,
and process grievances in their respective areas, provided the following conditions are met:
1) that they first secure the permission of their immediate supervisor (such permission
shall not be unreasonably denied);
2) that the supervisor shall be notified twenty-four (24) hours prior to investigating,
discussing, and processing grievances on City time (shorter notice may be given in the
case of emergencies); and
3) that the representative will report his/her return to work to the immediate supervisor
upon conclusion of the use of time for grievance matters.
-
It is agreed by the union that the above list shall be provided on a yearly basis to the employer and
updated as to changes in the composition of the designated representative.
f) An employee may request Union representation in accordance with the provisions of this
Agreement at each and every step of the grievance procedure set forth in this Agreement.
g) The bargaining agent, in accordanee '.vith its own lawful internal rules, shall have the sole
and exclusive right to determine whether any grievance warrants processing through this procedure.
In the event the ba-rgaining agent determines at any step of the grievance proeedure that a grievance
does not warrant processing, a written notification of that determination shall be soot to the City
Manager's designee for Labor Relations. The employee(s) involved shall then be free to process it
themselves or th.i'ough legal counsel.
-
11) If the ba-rgaining agoot has declined to process or further process any grievance presented to
it, and if any employee, or grOl:lfl of employees, desires to process it or further process their ovm
ELECTION OF REMEDIES
gne'..ance tm-ough this procedure, the bargaining agent shall be sent eoples of aU 'l.'ritten
---
communications sent by the OOlf)loyer or the employee(s) involved. Further, nothing herein
contained shall be construed to preyent any publie OOlf)loyees from representing, at any time, their
own grievance in person or by legal counsel to the OOlf)loyer, and ha',ing such grieYaIlce(s) adjusted
v/ithout the intervention of the bargaining agent, provided howcY/er, that the adjustment is not
inconsistent with the terms of the eollective bargaining agreement then in effect; and proyided
further that the bargaining agent has been giyen notice and a reasonable opportunity to be present at
any meeting ealled for the resolution of SUM grievances.
g) The bargaining agent, in accordance with its own lawful internal rules, shall have the sole
and exclusive right to determine whether any grievance warrants processing through this arbitration
procedure. In the event the bargaining agent determines at any step of the grievance procedure that
a grievance does not warrant processing, a written notification of that determination shall be sent to
the City Manager's designee for Labor Relations and to the employee(s) involved who shall then be
free to process it themselves or through legal counsel up through Step 3 only.
__ in) The bargaining agent shall not be responsible for any costs attendant to the resolution of any
grievance(s) it has not processed.
.m The parties acknowledge that multiple grievances may be combined at any stage of the
grievance procedure where the class of aggrieved employees is clearly defined and the subject
matter of the grievances is the same or similar.
k:j) At Step I, all formal grievances presented shall include the date of the alleged violation, the
specific article and section grieved; a brief description of the grievance, and the remedy requested.
The Eleetion of Remedy Form shall be attaooed to the grievance. Grie-vanees processed v/ithout the
Election of Remedy Form shall be returned the grie'/ant(s). They shall be given five (5) days to
submit the Election of Remedy Form. In the event the grievant(s) is not working at the time, upon
returning to work they shall be gi'/en five (5) days t-o submit the form. Failure to meet tms time
limit, the grievanee shall be eonsidered as withdra':/n.
.r-
ELECTION OF REMEDIES
8eetioB 4.5 EleetioB of Remedies. It is agreed by the Union that employees covered by this
Contract shall malee an exclusive election of remedy prior to filing a grie'lance or initiatiBg action
for redress before the Personnel Board on matters within its jurisdiction. Such choice of remedy
':,ill be made in writing on the form that shall be designed, and agreed upon by both parties. The
Election of Remedy form agreed upon by both parties shall be included as .^..ppendix .^. to this
collective bargaining agreement. The Election of Remedy Form ....ill indicate whether the aggrieved
party or parties 'lIish to utilize the grie':ance prooedure contained in the Contract or initiate action
for redress bef-ore the Personnel Board. Bargaining unit employees shall be precluded from availing
themselves to more than one (1) of these procedures. Selection of redress before the Personnel
Board shall preelude the aggrie':ed party or parties from utilizing said grievance procedure f-or
adjustment of said grievance. The Election of Remedy Form shall be attached to the grievaflce.
Grievances processed without the Election of Remedy Form shall be returned to the Union
President or the Grievant(s). They shall be given five (5) days to submit the Election of Remedy
Form. In the event the President or the Grie'lant(s) is not working at the time, upon returning to
work they shall be giyen fiye (5) days to submit the f-orm. Failure to meet this time limit, the
grie':anee shall be considered as withdrawn.
.--
Section 4.7 Differences Concernin2: Personnel Rules. - A difference of opinion with respect to
the meaning or application of the Personnel Rules which directly affects wages, hours, or working
conditions may be submitted by the employee or the Union President (or his/her designee) to the
City Manager's designee for Labor Relations (or his/her Representative) within ten (10) days after
the occurrence of the event giving rise to the difference of opinion. The Humafl Resources Director
(or his/her Representative), and the City Manager's designee for Labor Relations (or hislher
Representati'/e), shall discuss the matter with the employee and the Union Representative at a time
mutually agreeable to the parties. If no settlement is reached at this meeting, the employee retains
his/her right to appeal to the Personnel Board under the statutory procedures governing such
appeals.
.--
UNION TIME BANK/UNION CONVENTIONS
,'-
rCITY PROPOSAL FOR UNION TIME BANKl
-
Section XXX? The CW A shall have the right to conduct union business on City time
through the use of a time bank as set forth herein. Beginning in the first full fiscal year
after this Agreement is ratified. the time bank shall include 1200 hours per fiscal year.
(with no rollover). With the exception of only attendance at negotiations for a successor
agreement (as stated in Section 2.6 pfthe 2000-2003 Agreement) and attendance at Labor
Management Meetings (as stated in Section 9.16 of the 2000-2003 Agreement). this
Union time bank shall be used for all union business on City time. including all of the
Sections of this Agreement that provide any right for union representation and/or for the
investigation. discussion and/or processing of and/or attendance as a witness or
representative at grievance and arbitration hearings (such as in Sections 2.1. 4.1. and 4.3
of the 2000-2003 Agreement) and/or employee orientation meetings or other meeting
leave (as stated in Section 8.22 of the 2000-2003 Agreement). The CWA President or
authorized designee must provide a written request on an approved request form. at least
twenty-four (24) hours in advance. to the Department Director and Director for Labor
Relations for approval of the use of time from the Union time bank. Requests for use of
Union time may not be unreasonably declined. for example. if the use of time may cause
scheduling or manpower problems or overtime. Employees/representatives must return
to work immediately upon conclusion of the meeting that was the reason for the approved
Union time off. No more than two (2) employees/representatives may use time from the
Union time bank at the same time. unless specifically approved in writing by the City
Manager or designee for Labor Relations.
F:\HUMA\LABORREL\Labor Relations\CWA\negotiations 2003\City proposal for Union time bank.doc
r'
CLEANING ALLOWANCE
~
SeedeR 8.10 CleftBiR~ ......HeWftBee. If required to \T/ear a City uniform, persons emplayed in
the following public contact positions shall receive a uniform cleaning allowance of forty dollars
($10) monthly.
.---
,^jr Conditioning Mechanic
Building Inspeetor
Carpenter I
Carpenter II
Code Compliance :\dministrator
Code Compliance Officer I and II
Crime 8cene Technician I
Crime 8eene Technician II
Eleetrieal Inspeetor
Eleetrician
Elevator Inspeetor
Engineering Inspector
Mason
Masonry Helper
Meehanical Inspector
Painter
Parking Enforeement 8pecialist I and II
Plumber
Plumbing Inspeetor
Police Fleet 8pecialist
Poliee Records Technieian
Property E'lidenee Technician I
Property Evidence Technician II
Police Photographer
Public 8afuty 8pecialist
r-
CWA -1
PROMOTIONS - (STATUS QUO)
-
Section 9.17. Promotions. - Within 120 days of the date the Agreement is ratified by the City, the
Labor-Management Committee will meet to discuss selection procedures relative to promotions of
bargaining unit employees to other bargaining unit positions.
Section 9.18. Beach Patrol Promotions. - Prior to the end of calendar year 1998, the parties agree to
meet to discuss Beach Patrol promotion practices for the positions of Lifeguard II and Lifeguard
Lieutenant. Relative to that issue, the parties agree as follows:
1) Eligible applicants for promotional exams shall be given a written and an oral examination.
2) Applicants must pass an ocean swim test under reasonably common conditions. Conduct of the
swim test shall be monitored by Human Resources.
3) Applicants must have received at least a satisfactory evaluation in each element of their most recent
performance review to be eligible to take the promotional examination.
,-.
4) The written tests shall be developed under the direction of Human Resources. The reading list for
examination materials from which the questions are drawn will be set by the Human Resources
Director after consultation with the Department Director and the Union. Any reading lists will be
posted at least thirty (30) days prior to the administration of such tests. A copy of an examinee's
graded answer sheet shall be furnished to the examinee upon completion of the grading, if
requested. All challenges of questions on the written tests must be made in writing to the Human
Resources Director within two (2) working days of the testing dates and he/she shall conclusively
decide the challenge.
5) For the oral tests, questions shall be job related and evaluators shall use common criteria to assess
the quality of candidates' answers and to determine scores. Final scores on oral examinations shall
be the average of all scores made by evaluators.
6) Oral test evaluators shall be knowledgeable of the target position, shall include at least one person
who is not a City employee, and shall be selected by Human Resources.
7) Promotional lists shall expire two (2) years after the posting of the results of a promotional test or
_ where lists have been combined, two (2) years after the combining of the old and new lists.
SICKIV ACATION LEAVE ACCRUAL AND PAYMENT AT TERMINATION-
(STATUS QUO)
,-- Section 8.15. Sick and Vacation Leave.
a) Employees shall be entitled to twelve paid days a year due to illness for themselves or
family members.
b) The present policy concerning sick leave, including the policy for payment of accrued
sick and vacation time combined, up to a maximum of one year's salary, upon
termination, retirement, or death, shall continue for all employees hired before October
1, 1978.
-
c) All employees hired after October 1, 1978 shall, under applicable ordinances, rules, and
regulations shall be allowed to accrue no more than 360 vacation hours in accordance
with provisions for postponement of vacation leave as set forth in Article 16, Section 3
(b), of this Agreement; be permitted to transfer sick leave in excess of 360 hours to
vacation leave at the rate of two days' sick leave to one day vacation leave to be used in
the pay period year when transferred; be permitted a maximum payment at time of
termination, death, or retirement of 480 hours' vacation leave and one half of sick leave
to a maximum of 600 hours.
(1) A post October 1, 1978 employee who retires between April 8, 2002 and April 30,
2002, shall be entitled to termination payout of one-half (112) of accrued sick
leave up to a maximum payout of four hundred and eighty (480) hours.
(2) A post October 1, 1978 employee, who retires on or after April 30, 2002, shall be
entitled to termination payout of one-half (112) of his accrued sick leave up to a
maximum payout of six hundred (600) hours.
,--
SICKIV ACATION LEAVE ACCRUAL AND PAYMENT AT TERMINATION-
(STATUS QUO)
.- Section 8.16. Sick and Vacation Leave Accrual and Maximum Payment on Termination.
The present policy concerning sick leave, including the policy for payment of accrued sick and
vacation time combined, up to a maximum of one year's salary, upon termination, retirement, or
death, shall continue for all employees hired before October 1, 1978.
All employees covered by the agreement and hired after October 1, 1978 shall, under applicable
ordinances, rules and regulations: shall be allowed to accumulate no more than 360 hours of
vacation leave except in accordance with provision for postponement of vacation leave; be
permitted to transfer sick leave in excess of 360 hours to vacation leave at the rate of two (2)
days of sick leave to one (1) day vacation leave to be used in the pay period year when
transferred, be permitted a maximum payment time at termination, death, or retirement of 480
hours vacation leave and one-half of sick leave to a maximum of 600 hours.
See schedule of implementation below:
1.
A post October 1, 1978 employee who retires between April 8, 2002 and April 30,
2002, shall be entitled to termination payout of one-half (112) of hislher accrued
sick leave up to a maximum payout of four hundred and eighty (480) hours.
--
2. A post 1978 employee who retires on or after April 30, 2002, shall be entitled to a
termination payout of one-half (~) ofhislher accrued sick leave up to a maximum
payout of 600 hours.
3. Effective January 1, 2002, the "Must Use" accrual on vacation will be raised to
360 hours.
r-
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
,,--
[CITY PROPOSAL TO INCREASE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES]
Section 9.6 "Temporary Emplovees". - The City shall have the unrestricted right to hire Hp-te an unlimited
number of thirty (30) "temporary" employees in any bargaining unit position, provided they are not hired at the
detriment of the bargaining unit employees.
Temporary employees being utilized to fill in on short-term vacancies shall not be considered as a detriment to the
bargaining unit's employees. Such "temporary" employees shall be paid at rates set in the sole discretion of
management and a "temporary" employee's employment service may not exceed one (I) continuous year at anyone
time.
"Temporary" employees may not work in a classification wherein a permanent Civil Service employee is laid off.
The City shall send the Union a report of "temporary" hires. "Temporary" employees shall not be covered by Civil
Service or Personnel Board Rules, and they shall serve at the will of their employer without right of appeal or access
to the grievance procedure contained herein, and they shall not receive any fringe benefits or pension benefits.
Terminated "temporary" employees may be re-hired if their separation is under honorable circumstances.
~
Regarding the implementation of the unlimited number of thirty (30) Temporary positions, it is understood that
those positions were not limited to, but could be used to develop a cadre of employees who, on short notice, could
serve as backup for regular employees or for such things as vacancies caused by absences due to maternity, military
leave, sick leave, off-duty injury, on-duty injury, and work overload. The examples cited herein are not meant to be
all inclusive.
It is further recognized that employees who retire "in good standing" who may be interested in working on a
temporary, part-time basis, and should temporary work become available, the retired employees will have the
opportunity to make application for one of the temporary positions. Such part-time positions shall not be covered by
Civil Service rules or regulations, will have no fringe or pension benefits, and the salary shall be at a rate determined
by the City. Further, the temporary employees shall not have a choice of picking schedules, but will be assigned by
the City's management on an as needed, when needed, basis.
F:\HUMNLABORRELlLabor RelationslCW Alnegotiations 2003\CITY PROPOSAL TO INCREASE TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES.doc
.--
RANDOM DRUG TESTING
,.--
[CITY PROPOSAL FOR RANDOM DRUG TESTING FOR CERTAIN CW A
POSITIONS]
,,-.
NEW Section 10.2. Dru2lAlcohol Random Testin2. It is important to the safety and
welfare of employees and the public that bargaining unit members not be impaired by
alcohol while on duty nor use illegal drugs. To demonstrate the commitment of the City
and the Union to this notion, employees in the job classifications set forth below will be
subject to random testing during the tenn of this Agreement. Employees will be chosen
from a blind list by the Human Resources Department or its designee. The iob
classifications that are in the CW A Random Drug Testing Pool shall include:
Communications Operators
Complaint Operator II
Crime Scene Technician I
Crime Scene Technician II
Dispatcher
Dispatcher Trainee
Lifeguard I
Lifeguard II
Lifeguard Lieutenant
Police Photographer
Pool Guard I
Pool Guard II
Property Evidence Technician I
Property Evidence Technician II
Public Safety Specialist
.-
RANDOM DRUG TESTING
,-
Section 10.2. Last Chance A2reement Employees testing positive may be offered the
opportunity to enter into a "Last Chance Agreement" (for a maximum duration of2 years.
except in extenuating circumstances) to continue their emplovment. The Agreement shall
require participation in a rehabilitation program and such other requirements as set forth
by the City. The City reserves the right to terminate an employee without providing
himlher with a Last Chance Agreement. if the incident giving rise to the positive drug test
involved threatening or violent behavior or conduct so disgraceful that it causes
substantial embarrassment to the Administration. Employees under a Last Chance
Agreement who test positive shall be terminated from emplovment with the City and this
is not grievable under the grievance procedure. Employees may be given no more than
one (1) chance for substance abuse rehabilitation during employment with the City.
-
-
LIFEGUARD AND POOL GUARD SCHEDULING
~
Section 7.2 Normal Workday. - The normal workday shall consist of eight (8) or ten (10)
consecutive hours of work, exclusive of the lunch period, in a twenty-four (24) hour period.
Employees in Beach Patrol will work a four day, ten-hours per day (4-10) workweek except
effective with the commencement of Eastem Standard Time after October 2001, when the Beach
Patrol shall change from the four-day, ten-hours per day (4-10) workweek to a five-day, eight-
hours per day (5-8) workweek. Effective February 1 st, of each year through Daylight Savings
Time, the Beach Patrol will change to a four-day, ten-hours per day (4-10) workweek. Provided,
however, that upon ten (10) days notice. the City may change the above-noted Beach Patrol
shifts and scheduled for some or all Beach Patrol employees. The City may, on an as needed
basis, supplement the Lifeguard workforce with such "temporary employees" as outlined in
Section 9.6.
~
..--
,"--
---
TUITION REIMBURSEMENT LANGUAGE - (STATUS QUO)
Section 8.24. Educational Leave and Tuition Refund. The City's tuition refund program
shall be continued for the term of this Agreement.
---
Section 7.6 Holiday Celebration and Pay for Workine: on Holiday.
TRIPLE TIME AND ONE HALF
,-
,..-
a) (See Section 8.3. Holidays) Whenever any of the holidays listed in Section 7.3. Holidays of this
Agreement fall on a Sunday (or Monday for employees whose regular day off is Monday), the following
workday shall be observed as the official holiday; whenever any of the above listed holidays occur on a
Saturday (or Friday for employees whose regular day off is Friday), the preceding workday shall be
observed as the official holiday. In such cases, the day on which the holiday is observed shall be
considered to be the paid holiday and not the regular day.
City celebrated holidays that fall on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, and said holiday is on the
employee's regular day off, then the employee shall receive a day's pay for said holiday, if they meet all
of the qualifications contained herein.
b)
To be eligible for a paid holiday, an employee must report for scheduled work on the holiday, on the last
scheduled day preceding the holiday and the first scheduled day following the holiday unless such
absences are excused. Excused absences are defined as:
I) an employee calls in sick and is eligible to receive paid sick leave, and who is granted sick
leave usage;
2) approved annual leave;
3) floating holiday;
4) birthday.
c)
Whenever an observed holiday occurs on an employee's scheduled day off and the employee does not
work thereon, the employee shall receive for hislher normal workday a straight time hourly rate of pay
for the holiday.
d)
Work on a holiday falling on an employee's regularly scheduled workday, he/she shall receive holiday
pay for the holiday and time and one half for the hours worked.
e)
Should an employee be required to work on a holiday falling on his/her day off, he/she shall receive
holiday pay for the holiday and time and one half for the hours worked. shall reeeive pay at aOl:lble time
and eRe half rate for the hours worked.
1)
Failure to report for work on, before, after, or during the holiday after having been scheduled to work on
such holiday shall be just cause for denial of holiday pay.
g) A holiday which is observed during an employee's regularly scheduled workweek shall be considered as
time worked for the purpose of computing overtime.
REPORTING PAY LANGUAGE
r--
SeetioB 7.8 RepertiR2; Pay. ,^J1 employee \vho reports to work as scheduled '.vill ee
guaranteed eight (8) hours of '..'lork or eight (8) hours of pay; (or, for those on ten hour
days, ten hOlifs of work or ten of pay); pro';ided, however, that supervisors may assign
empleyees to perform any reasonable work.
F: \HUMA \LABORREL \Labor Relations \ CWA \negotiations 2003 \ CWA Reporting Pay Proposal (impasse).doc
r-
.----
CONTRACTING OUT
.---
Section 9.11 Notification in the Event of Transfer or Contractinl!: Out. - When the City contemplates
entering into a contract with an outside supplier or service agency to perform services presently being performed
by the Bargaining Unit employees and such contract shall result in the lay-off of any bargaining unit employee,
the City agrees that it will, upon written request, within ten (10) days thereafter, meet and discuss with the
representatives of the Union b0th the decision to eomraet and the effect of such contract upon members of the
Bargaining Unit. SHeh diseussions '",ill include a review of any eost analysis done by the City and will occur
prior to the exeelitioR of such a cOfltraet. No eontract shall be entered int0 l:lfltil the City aRd the Union have
partieipated in a good faith diseHssi0f1 of all the issues related to the deeision to eontraet and its eff-ects.
If the City enters into such a Contract and, as a result thereof, an employee will be laid off, the City agrees to ask
the Contractor to provide first consideration for such employee shall be eBtitlecl to first eORsideratioR by the
C0Btraetor for any available work.
In the event that the employee is not employed by the Contractor, the City will offer such employee another
available job with the City, if there is a budgeted vacancy and the employee affected by the subcontracting is
qualified to perform. Questions of qualification to perform the job duties shall be decided in the sole discretion
of the Human Resources Director.
~
If there are no jobs available, the Reduction in Force provision contained in this Agreement shall apply,
provided that such laid-off employee shall be recalled to work before the City hires new, permanent employee to
perform the work of the classification held by the employee at the time of the layoff.
This recall right shall exist for up to the individual's total service time with the City, but not to exceed two (2)
years after the date of the person's layoff date, but such recall right shall cease as of two (2) years after layoff, or
if the employee does not return to work as scheduled if he/she is offered a recall notice prior to the two (2)
years.
It shall be the responsibility of the laid-off employee to notify the Human Resources Department when technical
skills, training, and experience have been enhanced during the lay-off period, which may allow the individual to
apply for another bargaining unit job with the City.
Nothing in this Section will be construed to limit the Union's right to bargain concerning the identified impact or
effects of subcontracting out or transferring upon Bargaining Unit members.
.--
EMT LIFEGUARD PAY - (STATUS QUO)
_ Section 8.26. EMT Certification Pay. Lifeguard I, Lifeguard II, Lifeguard Lieutenants, and
Full-time Pool Guards who attain and maintain the Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)
certificate given by the State of Florida shall receive a five percent (5%) pay increase. This
provision shall be effective on April 8, 2002.
UNIFORMS
.r--
Section 8.11. Uniform Provision. Persons employed in all divisions, including the Public Safety
Communications C'wt (PSCU), who are compelled to wear City-issued uniforms shall be provided ""1th futi.U
~ uniforms.
Lifeguards and full-time pool guards shall be provided with one (1) Eetfeft sweat suit per year, and a winter
jacket every five (5) years. Six (6) long sleeved! short sleeved E6ffeft shirts or any combination thereof shall be
offered to Lifeguard I, II, Lieutenant, Pool Guard I, II, to further protect them from the dangerous ultra-violet
rays.
Uniforms ",,-ill be issued on the following schedule:
a) .",ll uniforms ",,-ill be delivered to the employees in the month of January of each
year.
-
nters into an a
uniforms that may be issued to any employee(s) (but not necessarily all emplo~'ees) who are in the bargaining
unit these sponsored uniforms mav be issued to satisty the contractual uniform obligations. No additional
contract obligations concerning uniforms are hereby created. and such sponsored uniforms may be
discontinued at any time by the Cirv.
A' crT'{ PROPOS:\LS - ELIMI;o.j \TF: CI E.-\.'lING"-LLOW & UNIFOR.\!S/SPO;o.jSORSHIP
.'-