LTC 142-2005 Special Magistrate Impasse Recommendations
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No. 142-2005
lQ
To:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez 1 L~
City Manager l 0
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IMPASSE RECOMMENDATIONS
Date: June 6, 2005
From:
Subject:
The purpose of this LTC is to transmit to you the Special Magistrate's Report on the
impasse proceedings with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), which outlines
his non-binding suggestions.
Under separate cover, we will be evaluating and reporting to you, the Administration's
positions to resolve the impasse.
If you have any further questions, please call me.
Thank you.
Attachment: Special Magistrate's Recommendation
JMG\LG\mr
cc: Ramiro Inguanzo, Chief of Staff
Linda Gonzalez, Labor Relations Director
(-) 0
--i ()"1
-:" .< :n
, c_
(; ./.- rn
~.
, ~:')
p.] I
.~ -.J in
';"t<,..
(/) ~::. ~--
*'4-.",
C) nl
......, ,=>
-n 0
(Jl
() \.D
,."
F:IHUMAlLABORRELILabor RelationslCommission LetterslL TC - Special Magistrate Recommendation.doc
?,.. .
JUN-02-2005 11:1TAM FROM-AKE~N SENTERFITT
+3053T45095
T-485 P.004/050 F-249
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RELATIONS COMMSSION
In the Matter of Impasses betWe:en:
City of Miami Beach, FlOriWL
and
Communication Workers of
America
Local 3178
Case # SM-2004-037
Representing tb.e City:
James C. Crosland, Esq.
Akerman ~'Tfitt
One Southeast Tbird. Ave. - 28m Fl.
Miami, FL 33131
Representing t]le Union:
Robert A. Sugi1l'lJWl, Esq.
Sugannan & Susskind
2801 Ponce Dc: Leon Blvd., Suite 750
Coral Gables, FL 33134
RespecdU11y submitted by:
John C. McCollister, Ph.D.
Special Magistrate
'-
.
.
JUN-OZ-Z005 11:17AM FROM-AKERMAN SENTERFITT
+3053745095
T-485 P.005/050 F-Z49
.....-
PUBLIC EMPL01'EES
RELATIONS COMMISSION
In the matter of impasses between: )
)
The City of Miami Beach, )
Florida )
)
and )
)
Canummication Workers of )
America, Loca13178 )
Case # SM-2004-037
Pursuant to Section 447.403, Florida StatUtes, and Administrative Code Rule
60CC.3.004, the undersigned was appointed as Special Magistrate to hear the issues as
outlined in this report involving the City of Miami Beach, florida (the City) and Local
3178 of the Communication Worters of America (the Union), and to make
recommendations on the same.
Both parties were afforded full opponunity to present all evidence gennane to the
issues. With the exception of the second balf of the seventh day of the Hearing (May 4,
2005) and the last full day of me Hearing (May 19, 2005), a Coun Reponer was present;
in addition, a television recording was made of the proceedings.
The first day of Hearing (Wednesday, March 16.20(5) began at 10:00 a.m. and
concluded at 5:30 p.m.
The second day of Hearing (Thursday, March 17,2005) began at 9:30 a.m. and
concluded at 4:30 p.m.
The third day Hearing (Friday. March 18. 2005) beg;Ul at 1 :00 p.m. and concluded
at 5:30 p.m.
, '---.~I
1
JlIl-02-2005 11: lTAM FROM-AKERMAN SENTERF ITT
+3053745095
T-485 P.006/050 F-249
-'
Due to demands for submission of extra evidence, (Ither sessions were needed.
The two lead attorneys and the Special Magistrate held a 45-rninute conference call on
April 6, 2005, and addressed the issues to be discussed at other meetings.
The fourth day Hearing (Tuesday, April 12, 2005) be&3Il at 1:00 p.m. and ended
at 7:30 p.m.
The fifth day Hearing (Monday, May 2, 2005) began at 10:30 a.m. and concluded
at 5:55 p.m.
The sixth day Hearing (Tuesday, May 3, 2005) began at 9:30 a.m. and concluded
at 6:20 p.m.
The seventh day Hearing (Wednesday, May 4, 2005) began at 9:30 a.m. Both
parties broke into groups in au attempt to mediate the issues. The sessions coocluded at
4:15 p.m. and were scheduled to continue on May 19th.
The eighth and final day of Hearing (Thursday. May 19, 2005) began at 9:30 a.m.
and concluded at 3: 1 0 p.m. Once, again, the sides broke fer. group meetings.
The Special Magistrate promised to render his opiniDn to the City Commission
within 10 days following the last session.
A..ppearing for the City:
James C. Crosland, Esq., Attorney
Paul Ryder, Esq., Anomey
Linda Gonzalez, Director, Labor Relations
Michael Reyes. Labor Relations Specialist
Patricia Walker, CbiefFinancial Officer
Stephen Palmquist. Actuary
-'
2
Jllf-02-2005 11: 1 TAM FROM-AKERMAN SENTERF I TT
+3053T45095
Richard Shell, WitneSs
Pat Hipple. Human Resources AdminiSlIatOr
Oscar Satiesteban. Data Base Administrator
Saul Frances, Parlcing Director
Julia Magrisso, Assistant Director, Parks & Recreation
Deedee Whitehorn, Cbaitman, Budget Advisory Committee
Brad Judd, Property Management Director
Eric Yuhr, Operations Assistant, Fire Depamnent
Trish Walker, CFO, City of Miami Beach
George Gon2a.1ez. City Manager
J\pJ)earing for the Union:
Roben A. Sugarman, Esq., Attorney
Pedro Herrera, Esq., Attorney
Ricbafd McKinnon, President, Local 3178
Lawrence Jessup, Economics Consultant
Phyllis Shamis. Complaint Operator, Dept. of Police
Uwezo Ross, Dispatcher, Dept. of Police
Edward Delfavero, Assistant Fire Chief
Jerry Buechler, Health Care Consultant
Janice Pyc. Code Compliance AdministratOr
Joseph McManus, Lifegurad
Warren Green, Pool Guard
._~
3
T-485 P.00T1050 F-249
JUN-02-2005 11 :18AM FROM-AKE~ SENTERFITT
+30S3T450QS
T-485 P.008/050 F-24Q
'-
Oscar Alfonso, TemporaryLifeguard
Jonathan Sinkes, Elecuician
-
TIlE HEARING:
The Onion opened by declaring that Miami Beach is an international city.
Although its borders contain a bit more than 90,000 reside:rlts, the City hosts more than
11 million visitoI1 each year,
Responsibility for mllintainit'g Miami Beach as an 2lttractive venue for tourists
includes the collective wolk given by the CW A-the large!:t union in the City. The
UnioD membership consists of approximately 450 skilled blue-collar and clerical
workers.
During FY 1993 - 1994, the City was able to convince a Special Master that its
financial situation was dire. Following the repon of the Special Master, Union
employees I'f!maitJed at a statuS quo in tcmls of wages. Today, however, the City enjoys
'"unrivaled financial success," according to Union Anorney Robert Sugarman. "There is
more than enough money available," he said, "and we're as.king no more than other
union:i. ..
The City Manager, just last September, reported tbal: the City's credit rating has
risen and that its debt bas decreased. "The City is rolling in money," said Mr. Sugannan.
The City has five defined barElti"ing units:
1. The FOP - Police
2. The lAFF - Firefighters
3. CWA
4
JLlf-02-2005 II: 18AM FROt.t-AKE~N SENTERF I TT
+3053745095
T-485 P.009/050 F-249
4. AFSCME
5. Government Supervisors As$Ociation (GSA)
According to the Union, the City, ather unions---especially those representing the
police and firefighters--are treated bener. CW A members.. according to Attorney
Sugarman, lag behind other unions and their members have, become second-class
citizens.
City AttOn1ey James Crosland did not endorse the claim that CW A members are
consicl.ered ..second-class citizens." He did admit, however that the Union was conect
when it stares that the police and firefighters unions are tre4Ued. differently. '"*We feel they
are different entities," said Attorney CrOsland.
The CW A and the City have not ratified a Collective Bargaining Aarcement for
FY '03 - '04. Consequently, the two sides also have not siplCd-off on an Agreement for
_" FY '04 - 'OS and for FY 'OS - '06.
Several issues were presented to the Special Magisb1ate. In every instance, the
party that seeks a movement or a change in the existing prac;tice and/or anicle within the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, bears the burden ofprooI Both sides endorsed this
understanding.
A total of 23 issues were initially discussed at the H~g. During the fim day of
Hearings, one of them-Sick Time Sell-Back-was withdrawn by the Union.
During the third day ofHeanng, Union Attorney Robert Sugannan suggested, in
an effort to save time, an ancmpt at mediation regarding all of the issues, save pension
and health insurance. The City firmly held its ground and did not accept the suggestion.
s
,
,
JUN-02-2005 11:18AM FROM-AKE~ SENTERFITT
+3053745095
T-485 P.OIO/050 F-249
As the days of the Hearing progressed, however, me City altered its feeling aDd agreed to
sit for an attempt at mediation.
Throughout the Hearing. the Special Magismue bad to concentrate on separating
fact from opinion. While everyone is entitled to his or bet ,:lpiDion, nobody is entitled to
his or her own set of facts. The Special Master wishes to g,) on record by stating that he
appreciates the efforts by rqm:scmatives of both sides who assisted in preS(' pril'lg the
entire pictUl'C ofthiDgs without embellishment and hyperbole.
As in any hearing of tbis natUre, the Special Magisnte must consider three
factOIS:
1. The Union;
2. City ManaacmCDt;
3. and, ultimately. the Citizens of Miami Beach.
The Special Magistrate bad the duty to hear and evaluate testimony a:od evidence
and, based on same, is commiss.ioned to make recOImJ1f"'nqations in line with wbat he felt
was best for the residents of Miami Beach.
The following sections of this report deal with tbe issues facing both parties, the
stands taken by each side during the course of ilie Hearing, .the opinion of the Special
Magistrate and his l'eCOIIUt'Iendations to the City COmmissi(ln.
-.'
6
'f
JlJHJZ-200S 11: 18AM FROtiHKERMAN SENTERF I TT
+305tT450QS
T-48S P.Oll/050 F-24Q
TERM OF AGREEMENT
'-.
The City says that unless both parties agree~ the CUu et1t StatuteS allow a City
Commission to consider only me first year of Impasse-i.e. FY '03 - '04. The City
wishes to ratify a contraCt not only for FY '03 - '04. but also one for FY '04 - '05, FY
'05 - ~06, and FY '06 - '07.
The Union is unwilling to negotiate for FY '06 - '07. In the words of Union
Attorney Robert Sugannan, "Who knows what circumstanCes might be present during the
'06 - '07 timc:frameT'
~ini9n:
The Special Magisuatc applauds the City for its willingness to lock-up wages and
other aspectS of a Collective Bargaining Agreement far III extended time. At the same
time, he agrees with the Union. Establishing a salary SU'UCt'lJte, etc., this far out would
coun~r a caution expounded by the City throughout the Hearing that the ccoaomy of
Miami Beach relies on the impact of the tourist industry and, at the same timc~ remains
wlnerable to potential damage created by hurricanes and otbel' weather-related activities.
R.econimendatiQn:
Persuaded not only by the argument of the Union but also by the cautions
presented during the Hearing by City representatives, the SIlCCial Magistrate asks the City
Commission to consider only an Agreement for fiscal yeatS '03 - '04. '04 - 'OS, and 'OS
-'06.
-
7
----- ----_.------ ------- .......-... ..-
JLII-OZ-2005 11: 18A.. F~AKERIIWI SENTERF I TT
+3053745095
r-.85 P.012/050 F-Z49
WAGES
'-'
Since 1993, when the relatively poor fiscal statUS ofd1c City opened tbe door for
the CW A to make concessions, other unions have received decent wage incrases.
During FY '03 - '04, for example, FOP,lAFF, and AFSCME members received a 3%,
increase. They got an additioaa13% increase for FY '04 - '05, and 3 ~% increase for FY
'OS - '06. The GSA received a 2 ~% increase for each year with a ''re-opeae(' for FY
'05 - '06.
The City bas offered me CW A 1 ~% increase for FY '03 - '04 that would be a
lump sum and not subject to pension payments. For FY '04 - 'OS. the City bas offered a
2 ~% increase wilh no retroactive payments. a 2 ~% iDcref&se for FY 'OS - '06 and. for
FY '06 - '07. a 2 ~% increase or the CPr, but not to exceed 3%.
Lawrence Jessup, an ecouomic consultant hired. by the Union, p~fO() a volume
--
of da~ which was designed to show the dollar ditferencc between the petitioos of the
Union as compared wi~ the offers of the City. More than a few of Mr. Jessup's figures.
however. were openly cballenged by the City throughout the Hearing as being either
"inaccurate" or '"misleading.'" As an example, when Mr. J~ attempted to distinguish
between the Union and City wage package proposals, be presented only the difference in
base pay; he did DOt include fringe benefits, even though be presented his figures as an
attempt to "show the difference" in cost to the City.
The bulk of Mr. Jessup'sp:resc'Dlation revealed little more than was already
known by those in anendl'T1ce, Le. the City has enjoyed the :;ort of prosperity heretofore
unequolcd. Taxes bave been lowered. Debt bas been reduced. Credit rating has
increa&ed.
8
,
JUN-OZ-2005 11:19AM FROM-AKERIIWI SENTERFITT
+3053745095
T-485 P.OI3/050 F-Z49
City Attorney James Croslaa.d agreed with the umon in tenns ofMillni Beach's
solid fuumcial statUS. "As compared with other cities our size," he said, "we're at the
top."
Union Attorney Sugarman opined. that much of tbis success is due to the diligent
and productive work of CW A members.
Chief Financial Officer for the City, Patricia Walker, also agreed wi1h the Union
that Miami Beach enjoys a positive cash flow. Ncmed1elcss. she highlighted several
additional mistakes in the report given by the Economic Consultant.
Ms. Walkcr also brought to the attention of the &rouP tbat she was goiDg to
recoaunend to the City Commission an increase in the amount of money that would be
set aside as a designated contingency fund (from its curtem $11 million d~ to
approJl.imalely $28 million). She also revealed that more money should be placed in the
self-in.iurance fimd. Whereas the current reserve for tbe self-insurance fund is
approximately $12.3 million, 1bc actUary recommends lbat this be taised to about $17.5
million.
Ms. Walkt:r concluded her testimony by ~ "w bat is sustainable?" She was
concerned that 1he Union ",~hPr (or any other citizen) might conclude that the sharp
rise in percentage of income tbis past year would be "'7'~l,...t each year hereafter. She
warned lbat this escalating perce.tnage of profit might be t=1.1percd in the event of any
shift in the wind oftomist groW1b and/or development grov-1b.
. Ms. Walker. whose observations were echoed later by Ms. Deedee Whitehorn,
Chainnan of the Budget Advisory Committee for the City, reminded all pl'CSC4t that any
economy (such as that of Miami Beach) based primarily upon tourism is vulnerable to
9
,
J IIHZ-Zo05 11: 19AM FROM-AKERMAN SENTERF I TT
+30537451)95
T~ P.014/o5D F-249
unforeseen disn1pti.ons such as hmricanes. ..We now are advised to keep coough fimds in
.-
reserve to take care of two full mnnms of operation, .. sbe said.
In line wilh tbc issue ofwqes, the City initiated a "Pay for Perf~"
dimension to the Collective BargJmtn,g Agreement. This issue is considered later in this
report.
Opinion:
The Special Magistrate is convinced that the City does, indeed, enjoy the sort of
positi ve cash balance that would be the envy of other rmmicipalities. That claim by the
Union evoked more challc:nges from the City tbau was necessary, partly due to the :fact
that the Union, through its Economic COD$ultam. insisted OQ introducing volumes of what
it deemed to be official public records. By doing so, the Urlion opened sevc:ral doors for
the CilY to challenge and COITCCt some specific figures. Smn.eone might conclude that
when il few figures in a document are proved to be in error IJI could be construed as
"misleading," the credibility of that entire exhibit becomes lnore vulnerable m suspicion.
Part of the reason for the cbaracterization by the Ciry that Mr. Jessup's figures
were 6'mislea~g"--in termS oftbe difference of opinion m: the cost to the City were it to
raise the percemage of pay for CW A employees in line with other unions-lay in the fact
that when the UIJion refers to the amount of , 'pay" in its ~ons, it c~ only
the amount of money its employees lake home with them mUowing each pay period. The
City. on the other band, com:ctly looks upon the word "pay'" as not only the base wages,
but the fringe benefits as well. The differences, says 1bc City, can be substaDtial. The
Special Magisttate agrees with the City.
._....J
10
.
JLII-02-Z005 11: 19AM FRCfIt-AKERIMIl SENTERF I TT
+3053745095
T-4&5 P.015/050 F-249
Someoae might well ch.aDctcrizc Ms. Walker's ~~ent of the fiIUIre as mere
"doom and gloom-i.e. citing the worst possible of sceuarios. That could be, albeit one
of the respansibi.liti of someone in Ms. WaIker's positica is to warn the City of what
could bappea in the event of a catastrophe. Ms. Walker ~entcd on seveul occasions
throughout the Haring: hlfall to11rism dollars go away, wc're in trouble."
Mr. Sugarman responded: "'That could be said of aD of Florida. ..
The Special Magistrate jdl'nlifi~ much more wi1b Mr. Sugarman '5 observation.
In spite of the new dP!rrumd4J placed upon the City in termS ofirs rcsc:rvc funds,
along with the rec~datiOllS outlined by Ms. Walker, the Special Ma~ remains
convinced that tbe City does DOt lack the funds to award CW A members a percentage
'.-"
raise equal to tbat oCtbe FOP. IAFF and AFSCME.
The Special Magistrate does not feel comfonab1c with the insisteDcc of the Union
that it be on an equal surface in every respect with mc:mben; of the police aDd firefighterS
unions.
In the mind of the Special Magistrate, of greater importance than a specific
percentage of pay raises during the Impasses is the fact that the CW A wishes 10 be
regarded on a par with police and firefighters. Attorney Sugamaan, on more 1han one
occasion. DOted that the City was treating CW A employees as "second class ci.ti2:ens."
The Special Magistrate, does DOt salute the "second-class citizen" label; he is
convinced that the City does not as well. He does agree witt! the City that CW A
employees are not police officers or firefighters. Their jobs are quite dit:YeR:m IUd, for all
practical purposes. do not carry with them the inherent perils oflaw-enforcement and/or
fire fighting. Because the roles of certain professions-in this case firefighters and police
~-
11
..
.
JIIHlZ-Zo05 11: 19AM FROM-AKERMAIl SENTERF I TT
+3053745095
T-485 P.016/o50 F-249
officers---are different, there is nothing out of line with the City offering bcua- salaries
'--' and/or bener bendits to these groups as opposed to those who belong to the cw A.
As in most instances, decisions we make arc based on emotion; we resort to logic
in order to justify or explain our feelings. Such is the case here.
CW A workers wish to be shown the same amoum of respect as are members of
the FOP and IAFF. The Special Magistrate agrees. He is convinced tbat me City does
respecT CW A worters as individuals. At the same time, as ;my rational observer would
agree, the City understands 1hat the inherent danger of tbeir jobs is far less tbao that of
police and firefighu:rs. JUSt as it is trUe that every job classification is not equal. so it is
true that every 8l21OUDt of compensation canDOt be equal and remain fair.
In terms of salary, the eqllali1800n oftbc amount of pay and fringe beuefits
between CW A and the FOP or IAFF will never be ~;7fOQ The equalizatioo in the
percentage ofraises, however, can be. and should be. a reasonable expectation.
One other factor that's involved here is the fiWure tel hone a Collective Bargaining
Agreement for FY '03 - '04. The facts presented at the Hearing convinced the Special
Magistrate that both the City and the Union shale the blame for canceling and for
impeding scheduled barpi"illg sessions. The facts showed that the City pl~ a date
already booked by the Union and the Union failed to respoad to pleas from the City to
schedule discussions.
A consideration for the Special Magistrate was the City's behavior during the
Impas$e Hearing. The Special Magistrate was convinced lbat the City created some
unnecessary barriers to progrc&S wbcn it made it more diBicult than necessary for the
Union to receive requested data. Only with the strong urging of the Special Magistrate
-'
12
.
'f
JlIHlZ-2005 11: 19A.. FROtHKERIIWt SENTERF I TT
+30m45095
T-.e5 P.017/050 F-Z49
did the City respoDd in a ~~le time. Certainly, tbere is value in iDsisliDg mat those
_', outsidt: City Hall follow a procedure and chain of COII'l,'-'Il'1, At the same time, those
outside City Hall are 1he ones for whom the ~ work. When seeking
information about public records. a citizen (including any member oftbe Union) must not
be required to wait an exuat44UaIy amount of time.
Throughout me Hearing, the City accused the UDiorl of creating delays because,
among other UtiDgs, its rcprcscnauivcs insisted on iDtroducing new items oflmpasse
following negotiation sessions. This accusation received credibility during me Hearing
when. even on the last day, me Union elected to intrOduce a new demand----fo add
washing machines at its lifeguard stations. While the request might have beaa valid. the
fact that the UnioD added another request this late in the procedure says to me Special
Magislr8te that the City was correct in its observation.
'_. Recommendation;
Since the City offered no acceptable rationale in denying CW A employees from
sharing the same percentage of pay increases with ~ unions, the Special Magistrate
asks the City to award CW A mcmbc:rs the same perceDIIW' raises for FY '03 - '04, FY
'04 - '05 and for FY 'OS ~ '06 as granted to police and firefighters.
In terms ofFY '03 - '04, the Umon bad been offeml earlier the same 3% raise as
given other employees. The Union elected to reject this ofYcr. Were the Special
Magismue to rec~d retroactivity at this point in time, be would send a message to
this and other unions that in future negotiations. all it would bave to do is reject a City's
offcr.lmowing that it would get the same through a recomn1endation by the Special
"
....
13
.uJHZ-2005 11: ZoAM F~AKE!W.N SEflTERF I TT
+30m45Di5
T-48! P,018/050 F-Z49
Maiistrate. ~e, the Special Magistrate fcc1s that the Union should m:cive the 3%
',-' raise b\1t only as a lump-sum payment, not as a part ofb8se pay.
For FY '04 - 'OS the 3% base pay should be made retroactive to October 1, 2004.
For FY '05 - '06, the raise should be 3 ~ %.
PENSION
Peniiooq have bca1 in the news lately. Certain airtine companies--Delra, USAir
and Unit~ for example approach baDkruptcy partly because of the amouIIl of pension
payments that must be home by the companies. In some mmnres, the c. ~ies have
either radically reduced their pension paymentS or have wUbdrawn them alfoge1her.
The City expressed this same concctn when ~iDg this issue during the
Hearing.
-
The City admitted that the pension benefits for CWA dift'er with tboIe of the
police and firefighters. Both At10mey Crosland and Atramey Paul Ryder repeated the
observation that the woiken wbo belong to CW A. in me opinion of the City, are not the
same 1ciDd of employees facing the same son of challenr.
Union Anomey Sllgaw-n put fanh a spirited }&~.lIation in wbich be showed
ample evidedce that the City formerly bad contributed the same basic amOUDt toward the
pensions of all employees. A marked difference in CODIributi0n9 and benefits separated
CW A workers from the police and firefighters. In fact, since 1993, CW A employee
conuibutions to tbe peusion fimd have increased, wbilc 1hc benefits have geaeraJly
decreased. On the other side of the coin, police and fircfi.gl:ue1's have reali7P1i improved
-
14
JUI-OZ-Z005 11 :2oA" FROM-AKE~ SENTERFITT
+30S374m5
T-.e5 P.019/050 F-Z49
benefits over the same period of time. During four oftbose )'CItS (1999 - 2003), the City
.._/ made no coI1trj~s wbatsoever to the employees' pemiQn fund.
AttOrDe'Y Sugarman said that in 1993, the City bit 1h: Uuion twice; Uuion
members CODtr1~ more and received fewer ~~t1~, _ the City ignoral the
requirement that pemtission for 1bis action go to the vota'S. ""The City C<)W-~ to pay
less for its employees each year, even though prosperity is :It a record bigb," be said.
Mr. S11glIl'IDIU1 repeated the Union's theme that it w;JUtS the same ~ts as those
enjoyed by the FOP and lAFF.
Tbc City eowttered with the claim that, indeed,. it did DOt contribute II) tbc pension
fund for four years. According to the City's Auorney R.yder, the pension fi1DIl was
earning enough though its invt5tm~ to more lban JUke up the comri.buticas in
previous yeaIS.
As to briDling CW A employees up to the level ofbenefits enjoyed by the police
and fifCfightels, me Umon claimed that this would cost me City $2,875,735 per year.
The City c]aitn~ that this total was based upon yea:r-old data. The City's claim is that
the increase would be 53,179,666 per year.
Within the arena of the peDsi~ fund is the fact tbat cmrent CW A weaabets are
divided into two groups-Tier"A If and Tier "B." Bc:ncfits and perccmagcs of
connibutions vary with the two tiers. In addition, the umc.n President, Mr. Richard
McKinnen, bas tiled a lawsuit against lbe City regatding die spelled-out beoeDts.
Toward the cud of negotiations. the Union sv.grzr~ altcmative solmions.
Included in tbe suggestions were:
. -"
15
.
J1I-OZ-Z005 11: ZoAM FROtHKERIIM SENTERF I TT
+3O!3T45lla5
T'" P. 020/050 F-249
For Tier A--<:Ol1timIe to pay 10% ofda' salary, iDcluding 0lIICItimc:. and
~. .I'
R!CCive the tbUowing bale'fil!l ~
Drop,
100% Survivorship.
Two-year buy-blck.
Early-out,
Allowed to remain in GERS when ~ outSide ofba1~ing unit.
For Tier B---caminuc to pay lOOAJ of their salary, including ovcmme, and
n:cci.ve the following ~":
Drop,
100% survivorship,
CODSOli~ Tier B iut.o current Tier A.
Allowed to remain in GERS when pro:molei'l outside ofbiur:...:..g unit.
For 401-A employees who chose me wiDdow to enter the OERS will do so
wid! me following improvements:
Drop,
C-cmolidati1'!g Tier B into cum.mt Tier A,
401-A Window
Allowed to remain in GERS when promoI!'ll outSide of~'.:'~g unit.
The City countered with several facts includiDg dJIl: if a two-year buy-back were
initiated, the City would still be obligated to pay 500.10 of tbe health insurmce tor the
fonDer employees.
16
JUI-OZ-Z005 11 :ZoAM FROM-AKE~ SSNTERFITT
+3053745085
T-4e P.021105D F-249
The Union stafCd that, in most instances, those zecciving two-year buy-backs get
',- jobs elsewhere in which there is adequate health in.sutJ8:e coverage.
'The City was unable to give to the Special Magisrnate the number oflbose to
whom they are giving the So% health insurance CQveraae.
Opinion:
The Special Magistrate uaderstands that the pension issue is ODe of the two '"hot
topics" in tbe negotiations. In this conteXt. he has given dx: matter considc11lb1e thought.
He ;~tifies with the frustration of the Union ~~ who fee11bey have been
compt:lled to make sacrifices siuce 1993 and have not been given relief.
The Special Magistrate was not convinced'that the City is compelled to offer the
complete benefits package to CW A members as it offers to police and fipofi~. It's
just another way ofme City IeCOgrj7.jng that those who 1ft responsible for the safety of
the citizens of Miami Beach are different kinds of employees.
At the same time. the Special Magistrate is oftbe opinion that in 1993, the Union
did make sacrifices (due partially to the repon of the Special Master at that time) in its
pension benefits because the City was in dire financial smPlS. He believes mat anyone
who reii1ses to acknowledge the sacrifice of CW A mrmhPrs since 1993 is Jiving on the
wrong side of history.
This Special Magistmc thaefore believes that the City, in itS cunesa Slate of solid
footing flnlmcWly, has a mcn:al obligation to its employees who were willing U) pay more
and receive less for its pension program. By incrcasiDg some benefits at this time, the
City is saying not only to current members ofCWA, but also to all other employees: "We
'-
17
.
JlI-OZ-Z005 11: 21 AM FROIHKERIlWI SENTERF I TT
+30537'4!Oi5
T-4f5 P.022/050 r-z48
appreciate the fact tbat yoU woda:d wi1:h US during the ro.p times; we are IMJ'W willing to
demonstrate this." Such a &eStWe sbDuld result in positive public relations.
Anomer 4imetJqon of tile pension program, as pointed out by Auomey Sugannan.
the portions ofbeaeDts given to those who are disabled or to 1he bendici.xs of those
who have died should be the same. The Special M.gj~ Agrees.
Recommendation:
In light of me above, again following many hou1s of con9ideration, me Special
Magistrate rec(}mn~' the follDwing:
1. Adopt the Union's proposal fOT Tier A, tOr Tier B. and ir 401-A
groups.
2. Overtime payments. however, should DQ! be calculan:d ........d pension
payments.
3. Duplicate for CW A members the sene kDdits as those currently
given to firetiglttPr's and police persoauel in the event _ employee is
disabled or dies wbile on the payroll.
4. The Special Magisttate urges the Union to drop the cun=E lawsuit.
Note: while lbis involves not a spcci1U: issue of TT11patSf'. 1be Special
Magistrate feels that this will go far in promoting greater blrmony
between the Union and the City.
,,-.
18
.
J1IHZ-2005 11: 21 AM FRaHKERIiM SEfClCRf I TT
+3053TU!
T-485 P.023/o5o F-Z48
HEALTH INSURANCE
-~
This was me second of two "bot topics" under coasidcmtion. As af'fll1llN. says the
Union, CWA worten earn less JDODeYtbanpolice orfir~plS, yet they~more for
health insurance coverage. As a result the CW A wams 10 :fann its own health insurance
plan as bave tbe police IUI.Cl titdi~.
The City says that iftbe CW A pulls out oftbc existing health ~ plan,
Miami Beach would suffer adverse consequences to its budget. This would act be a good
business decision Right now, the CW A has me same p. as do membets of AFSCME
and GSA
Of~~ to the City isth.c iact that the ~.~ bea1th plan bas 10 include a
slate of employees, 40 percent ofwbom are tetirees. Tbat tigmc is ~ to increase:
over the IJeXt few years. .Acc<<cting to the City, many (ma::t) insuraDcc cmiers refuse to
cover any municipality with more than 10 pcrccm retired employees.
The City !bowed lbat ~Wn~ for this year's bea1th insurance ~ 4.4 percent.
Attorney Ryde:r did admit that tbe City never sought bidden for the C\11TCIII cmmact. The
Union objected to this approach and labeled it: "irrespoaSible fI1"~-"
The: Union said that it wantS to pull out oftbe cuaE:11t plan and to bID its own
health plan. The Union claimed that it could fund its pl'Ot&an1 were tbe City to pay tbe
same PPO rateS it gives AFSCME members; it could DOt C) 90 were the City to pay only
the HMO rates.
The City says that if the CW A workers pull out, it would drive up lhc costS to the
City in ordc::r to COVeT other esnployees.
.....
19
JtII-QZ-2005 11: 21 AM FRfJHKERWM SEftTERF ITT
+3O!3T.sa!
T-485 P.024/050 F-W
That ~~gJ Atromey Sugarmanla:pt ple-tVrtg for the Unim1: "We want
the same ~fft5 as given to police aod firefigJm::rs."
At the CODClusion oftbe Hearing, the City .~ f1H11l13 sunce tbar it would not
accept a privare plaa for CW A ~.
Opini,?u:
'!be Sp-Qal M.agistrMc agrees wilh the Union m. the City. indcc:cl sbDald have
sougtn bids OIl 1his year's insunDce program. While be UIIdersamds the City's
justification for this decision (the previous year7s secmd lowest bidder was IDDCh greater
than that oftbe current c~). he feels that 111 attemPt' sbould have bea11D1de to see
ifJ indeed, same od:Ia' company migbt have Offc:red~lw,g better.
The Union, in dM: cpiniaD oflhc Special t.f~~. presented a .-...;..:mg
argument that it ccmld, indeed. form a self-insured plan wbile contributions by the City
would not suffer. Perhaps, just perhaps, the absa1ce of CWA employees m:. the plan
might raise the COJJUibu1ions for me City to some degree, it is a relatively small sacrifice
in ord~ to keep and wail1tain aood will among its cmplD}let:s. In fact. me iDput given to
the Special Magisttsc by other municipalities and j,..,m~s in the private sector that
managers are most willing to rid themselves of the bunIeI1 of providing aDd mlDaging
health care for employees.
The Special Magistrate feels, however, the City siIouJd not be r-1i-l by having
to support such a plan by connibuting substantially more to a self-insured plio dum it
would be obligated to pay bad the Union remained with tbc current pIau. In lbc opinion
of the Special Magistrate, iftbe Union electS to become self-insured, it should DOt expect
...,
20
,
J.lIHlZ-ZD05 11: Zl AM F~AI(ERIlWI SENTERF I TT
+30537'45095
T-415 P.025/050 F-248
the City to contribute more dum it would had the Uuica aereed to remain witl1 me current
.._~ . plan.
Also, the City should DOt be considered to become a Alsafety net" in me event a
private health insurance plan should tail.
~Pl'lmP.l'l~on:
Tbc Special Magistrate mgcs the City Commission to allow merubers of the CWA
to fon'll its own hca11h insuraDcc plan. If their employees em enjoy the same or even
better benefits at lower costS 10 them. so much 1be beUer.
The City should ccmtribute to the health insunmce progtam but to no more of a
degree than it would bad the Union stayed with the CU1'l'CIa plan. Also, in the unlikely
event that the new sclf-imunmce plan should fail or suffer YDCXpCCted losses, 1bc City
--
should not be held responsible to bail-out the new system. Therefore, the City's
contribution to the new plan should not be more than 1bat which is given to manbers of
AFSCME.
ELECTION OF REMEDIES
ClmeD1:ly, employees with a grievance can elect 10 go to arbitration or to the
Personnel Board for relief. The City WantS to change this so that the employee has the
choice of electing arbitration or go before a hearing ~nrrrin~ who is hired by tbc City.
The reason for the City's desire to adopt the new procedure is that the decisioDs rendered
by a professional arbitraror or bearing ~SU11in~ would be more in line with nzIcs oflaw.
The City ~in~ those present that AFSCME bas agreed to this p&oc:edure as
have the police aDd firetiglnc:n umom. The GSA has grievmcc arbitration oaly.
-
21
J
J&IHlZ-ZoO! 11 :ZlAM FRUHICEIIWl SENTERFITT
+30537_5
T-485 P.026/O!O F-Z49
The UDion argued that 1bc City is att~ to tab away a tried aod true method
of anevance that bas been in c:ffi:ct siDcc 1937. "!fit's DOt bloke, don't fix it, to repeated
Attorney Su~. 1be City's proposal will result in OUt' pievances beiDg beard by
rookies, not seasoned veterans."
Right now, an employee may grieve bis/hicr case before the Persoaael Board and
it costs bimIber no money. Were belshe to go to arbitrrCm, in all probability 1hc
employee would be burdened with the cost of hiring an comt"y.
In addition, says the UJ:Jiul, iftbe City foots me cm:ire bill, it could be seen as
controlling the entire procedure. The existing Pcrsonncl &ani has involvc:mcat by the
local Corntl'l1Jn1ty.
Qpinion:
Were the City allowed to hire its own bearing offiCu and/or arbitrafOr, the City, in
.~.
all probability, would not CODlrOl the situation. However, it can certainly give this
appearance. The current system would cJ;",i~$I1"e tbat pcl~.
The Special Magislmc was also persuaded by me Union that a grieftar can come
before the Personnel Board witbout bearing the cost of legal counsel.
As a result of the above, the Special ~ sees DO advamage to c:hanging the
existing procedure.
R.econmJl".J1tt:llrinn:
The Special ~ urges the City Commissicm to maintain the salUS quo in
this issue.
.,'
22
>-
JlIl-82-Zo05 11: 2ZAM FROM-AICERIIWl SEftTERf ITT
+3nm45lJ95
T~ P.OZ7/050 F-Z49
UNION TIME BANKICON\'~IONS
....-.
As of DOW, the Union bas 17 steWards sad 7 chid' *W_~ that serYe its members
at, says the Union. appro,,~y 40 worlc sites. The l..TmcD wantS to alter me Collective
Bargaining Agreemf"l1t that woWd allow 3,000 hours pet year for its steWards 10 conduct
Union bnsiDess with a rollover to the next FY for houts DO( used. The Umoa would
acCept a limit of 6,000 boun for a combined allotmem plas rollover hOUlS.
When pressed, the Union said that the steWards could engage not in just grievance
discussions, but also in promoting the general welfare of me, Union.
The City objected st'tOngly to this addition. AttIxDey Crosland atped fbr the City
that steWBrds could take off work for any reason and justif}r it by saymg: "This is Union
business."
As the Hearing progressed, the Special MagisuaIc 1eamcd that the peviously
Slated "'40 work siteS" cJ'lV'ecI by me Union did not invoIv,~ 40 different bui~q. The
more accurate description woWd. be 23 VcmJcs.
Qpinion~
The Special Magistrate agrees with 1bc City. The Union, in his opimoa, failed to
demoAStrate a genuin~ need to dllimV the existing progran for Union t~. t(1~tiVes.
Were the dPmUlti~ by the Union c:udorscd. stewards on City time could spcDd time
inte03cing with their fellow member:s in lieu of serving as productive c:mpIoyees.
~OTnmepda1ion:
The Special Magistrate feels that the cutrent policy of the Collective Bargaining
AgrecmcDl should stand.
-.1>.
23
,,'
1lI-oz-2005 11: 22AM FRCtHKERlIWI SENTERF I TT
+3053T45U95
T-48!l P. 028/050 F-249
CLEANING ALLOW ANCElUNIFORMS
~- .
These two issues are iIII:arelatcd
As to Cleaning Allowance. Ms, Phyllis Sbamii. a Complaint ~~ for the
Police Department, and Ms. Uwczo Ross, a Dispatcher for d2e Police Depanment,
testified tbat ccnain people who arc required to wear City-i ~ uniforms are DOt
compemsatcd for costs of cl~nmg the uniforms. The cost for this is appro~~ly $20
per wt:ek.
The Union asks that everyone required to wear a City UDifonn receive a cleaning
allowance of $50 per month, aDd 1bat all those Union ~~ CUITently receiving such
allowance have their COmpmasarinn IBised from $40 to $SO per month.
The City responded that it elected not to give tbc additional tlmds ~ the
uniforms ~ washable and need not be dry-cleancc1. Also, the workers are given
-~.
uniforms. which saves on wear and tear oftbeir persoual wmirobes. Finally, said the
City, it refuses to give all the extra pay demandeQ by me huge number of rc:quatS by the
Union.
On this same issue, Mr. Edward Delfavero, A9sU1a.1Jt Fire Cbi~ tetified that,
indeed. membP.rs of me IAFF do receive clothing allOWBDCC.
Union Anomey Robert Sugamum noted that me DeW wifOIIIlS DOt aa1y contain
logos for IZOD, but also they were not l00-percent ~ something 1hc employees
enjoy wearing.
Finally, Anomey Sugarman requested 1hat lifeguards receive a dress UDiform akin
to that worn by firefighters and police officers. that would be appropriate to wear during
official fimerals, etc.
24
"
.
JlI-OZ-Zo05 11: ZZAM FROIt-AIHM SEmRF I TT
+305374!095
T-485 P.OZ9/050 F-248
Qpinion:
The ~tl Magistrate was DOt convinced by !be Union that a c1f-- i;r B allowance
is n~ tor me son of~mifnfTTl!l provided by the City. The employees, ill his opinion.
actually bc:nmt from DOt having to wear their own C'1~ an the job. Wr:r.r: lbey
compelled to wear 1bcir own cJDrhing. they would have to cover the costS of washing
them. That's just a normal ~ nearly everyOJ1e 'beaD in life.
Had tbI: uniforms been me type that ~~'"'li to be dry cleaned fee .u practical
~, the Union might have a stronger argJImenr,
As to the fact that the Union m~ are r~ ro wear vnifonns wid11ogos of
a specific company, there's a compelling argnm~ that they should be crap. QS8ted for
their role in advcn:ising the product. Also, there is a SOI1IK1 qument tbat if DDCOne
refuses to wear ~ logo for ~ rn5ODS. helsbe sbculd DOt be compdk!d to do so.
The Union was also unable to convince the Special Magistrate that dIess unifoans
for lifeguards would benefit the City and/or the citizeDs at Miami Beach.
Rf!t!t\mm~thnon:
The currem practice for cl~aning of uniforms sboul4 prevail. At 1he same time, ii
the CIty is hemi paid by IZOD to have its employees wear uniforms with the logo. the
employees should share in SO-pm:cnt of this compeusation. That money COGld be given
to the Union's general fimd
The Special Magistrate asks the City C01Tlmi~ciOD 10 reject the UniaG's petition
for dress uniforms for lifeguards.
2S
,.
.
JlI-OZ-Z005 11: Z2AM FRl:M-AKERWJt smERF I TT
+3053T4!lJJ!I
T-48! P.030/050 F-249
PROMOTIONS
-
The Uuico was poinIed in its ~S when it urFl1be Special ~i~~.IC to
urge the City to base promotioas OPly on scores from "JDe.t1 ~lII'I'Iinmom -"or oral
examinations that cblt with 1P5....~k matters reJati-rlg to tbe job that ~~ answers
that could be ~cmrcd in terms of accuracy. In short, me UDion asked tb8t "'cbc merit be
put back into tbe merit system. ..
Ofspecial concen1 to me Union was the possibility oflhc admjni~IM~
promoting their filvorite people in lieu of those wbo saxed highest on the e:ums.
Currently, the Collective ~i!le Agreemem says 1bIt _least tbree oftbc tI3p
candidates would be considered for promotion. That piase ~ least,n says 1be Union.
invites otbcr ~~ to be put on the promotional list as opposed to the pmon
receiving the higbcst score.
The City argued that fadm:s other than wri~ 11:51: ~ enter imo sdecting
people to be p-omoted pC1'9QlVllity ttaits and me ability to comxnunicatc wa od1ets are
but tWo. Also, tbe City mDi~ aU that the current sysICI'll has served bod1me City and
the U!1ion far more than ten years. To quote Union .A!II:1m:y Sugamum. who said many
times during the counc oftbe Hearing. "If it's DOt broke, daD't fix it."
The Union countered with me fact that ~i"~ for promotion can serve a
probationary period and, iflbey do not ~up to me tc5pODsibilities ~ed by
the new position. they can be sau back to their former positions. The City xauinded the
Special Magistrate that this process can be not only time consuming, but costly as well.
Tbe Union introduced SOQIC witneSSeS and rx~ ofthosc who claim they
were DOt promotec1 as they sboWd. have been.
'-""
26
l'
.
.-.oz-Zo05 11: Z2AM FRCM-AKERIWI SEIf1'ERF I TT
+3053T45Q9!
T-485 P.031/050 F-Z48
1'be City teSpODded that far toO often SQJDeOCIC who MIS not selected b:
"_, promotion will cry: "Foul!" Such is me case with the ~~ offered by- Union.
Finally, the City ~ tbose present that it lIIs had a history of~on over
existing procc:dures in bOIh the police aDd fitc ~. Becall~ oftbis, Slid
Attorney CroslaDd, tba:e is DO more "rule of1btee."
Qpinion:
In the mind. ofme Special Magistrate, the demltf'rl by the Union m. 0Gty an
objective teSt score (be it written or oral) form the sole criterion for promotioo is
--
UDderstandable but unjustified. h is understandable in dIM. 011 paper, the mast qualified
should be placed iDro a specific position, But, is a teSt scare the only :iliWdlw4 by which
we judge wbo would best serve me City in a particular posjtion? The Special Magistrate
thinks not. Fnmkly, that's not the way lbe real world acIS.
Other factors must enteI'the picture when ~ ",;.1;01 for the best ca;dat.e for
promotion. I.eadersJrip, persouality, and ~'rrilSJTl are but three qualities - cannot be
measured tlu:ough a multip1c-cboice or essay exam.
The biiba' up the ladder of responsibility a ~~ climbs, the 11KR important
become these j~ples.
Consideri1\g only exam scores (lhc position oftbe Union) as a basis D promotioc
is also undcrstaDdable when we coml~ that. in the past, !am.e municip8Jiri- have
promoted :tiieDds or relaUves ahead of the more qw~1ifiM That fear notWidIsmDding,
there was not one example oftC,rc(l by the Union that the City of Miami ae.ch bas
employed such a practice.
-~
27
T
.
.u.oz-2005 11: 23AM F~AKERflWl SENTERF I TT
+3053T4!095
T~ P,032/050 F-2A8
"-'
The Special Magistrate also recognizes that it: afIer IeSts have been UIkaI, the
City would select candidates who 1311 far down tbc list in scores, this can give an
appearance of favoritism or nepotism.
The Special MagistnIte can UDdcmand how usiDg criteria other tbaD. 1ICSt scores
for promotion can generate other ccmsequ.ences. The ~ report (March 23, 2(05) of
Desiree Goodwin. the librarian from Harvard University, ~bo is suing the famed
institqtion for its failure to promote her, is proof. The City, therefore, sboukl be aware of
this possibility when it CODsid~ other ''meas~'' in recommcudmg }XIXDOuons.
Reco~on:
-'
In light of the above:, lbc Special Magistrate urges the City Q>mmj.., to frame
a compromise policy. He asks the Commission to reject the Union's Ploposal of
selecting caid.~ based so1cly on exam scores. But, in order to maintain me proper
spirit of promotions aDd to give vahle to test scores, be asks that the City C~$sion
establish a policy that ODly the Mmqir1~ who score in me top three of pi"' ~
exams be CODSidered for oral interviews for a vacant position.. Such a policy would give
proper weiglu to the qualifying exams, yet allow m311'gm3 ~ the opportuDicy to consid=-
the SlrCalled mtRngibles often ncccssary for success in me new position.
........
28
"
'.--oZ-2005 11: 23AM FRtlHKERflM SEftTERF ITT
+3Dm'45Di5
T-415 P.033/050 F-248
SICK/V ACATION LEAVE ACCRUAL
CuD=tly, the police aDd ~~ have an I,,, I {A~ maxin'mm .~ of days
that ttey can accrue. The UDioo, which "LlJ.1Qit1y bas 1bc same plan as AFSOdE and
GSA, seeks the same benefit fer its l~n~ as are eajoyed by the FPO aad IAFF.
The Union ~ ~ showing tbat tbe maximum for sicttftcation
leave accrual iDcreased for the Unclassified and some o&:hc- Classified ~.1~. The:
City countered with the faCt tbM these benefits were the result of other baa~g
sessions.
The City also reminded the Special Magistrate 1bat me Union is 411- 'Altiug to
pick 1bc best frgm me ~ of all the other unions. n.: Union fails to meldon that
these beDefits resulted from balrining SCS$iaos in which tbere was gi~. in
order to generate an acceptable Collective Bargaining Apement.
Qpinion:
The Special Magistrate agrees with the City 011 lbis issue. The~ cited by
the Union tbat lie currently liven to tbc FPO and lAFF have resulted ftom t.gaining.
We do not know wbat either of these unions have back in retUm Therefore, lID accept the
Union's plO~ based solely on this observation would be premature.
Recnmm~Ation:
The Special Magistrate sees move value in msri~ the statUS quo in this
instance.
-
29
..
. JIIHlZ-Z005 11: Z3AM FD-A1aIIWl SENTERF I TT
+3053T45lli!l
T~ P.034/050 F-Z49
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
The City wmts 10 ~ me use of ttllllolld1j employees. CUl'mIdy dx:
Collective Ba.a;\irti", AgreemerIt allows the City to bave 30 remporary ~ on itS
payroll at any givm time; the City wishes to expaud this DUmber to 25% of_ unit
(appro"m,~ 107) employees.
Mr. Saul Fmnces. ParldDg Director for the City, sta1es that curJ:eDtly _ staff
includes 37 officers and five supervisors. He would like 10 cxpaud 1bat ~ during
peak times.
The Union protested the City's cum:m use of 1aDpOlWY employees. Currently,
says the Umoo, the City bas brought on so-caUcd 1""111f'">i...y employees aDd.,e worked
them 40 hours a week, 11 mnndK of the year. 1bis is . way for the City 10 eliminate
potential full-time employees," says Union Anomey SupLUoWU, .~us pI'(~:"'g our
Union from pning IDCII'e meml:le1s." The Union, in Dc, wens to el"",~ mring of
tcl11pQl1II'y employees altogether.
The City argues tbat the wrium leuer of1he C-^JMive ~T11nl Alt=nent
does ~t prohibit 1bis from luW'mng. The City ~tTWt tbat it saved II108CY when
hiring temporary employees, siDcc it docs not have to pay friDge benefits, We '-ding
pensions or the cost of medical coverage.
The Unim suggested that temporary cmplo~ be hired only from a list ofthosc
seeking fuUwtUne jobs. The City said this would not be posbble. It pointed oat that many
of its temporary employees come from the raub of scbooIr~ers and otbt:d who do DOt
seck pcrmspm positions, but only only sea50ZW empIoym.:m.
'-'
30
~
.
.--oz-Z005 11: Z3AM FD-AIDM SEIfI'ERF' TT
+3U53T49a5
T-485 P.035/050 F-248
...
Opiniun:
In the miDd oftbc SpccWl Magisu'ate, the City is ~cally COA-ect wilen it StBtCS
that tbey are followiDg the It:aer of tbe law. At the same time, mere is a . difference
~ doing the right l'hiDss md doing things me rigbt way. The City l.s ~ only a
legal cnn~i~oa wi1h this issue, it also bas a mmal ~.non to its C'uu~ employees.
In this in~, ibe City might be following the words oflhe CollectiTe
Barpjning ~. But, is tbe City's action in !iDe witf:1 the intcmiOl1 of1be
Agrecmcm? The Special ~i~. tbiDks DOt In fact. me City's appI'OICh ~ this issue
borders on !be uaed:tical.
It is ~ certaiDly, for 1bc City to cut back OIl ~ by hiriDg tanpOruy
employees who agree to wode 40 hours a week in lieu of fI&ll-time workess. But. this
-;
docs not reflect the spirit oftbe Ag.~lt.ew
The term ~alY employee" says what it is--a momc:mary filliDg of a
vacaucy used as a saopgap nvoaqrre in the event of peak 9CtiOJ1S or un.foreseez1
circumstances. An employee wcd;ing 40 hours a week fer a stretch of 11 ~q is not a
''temporary employee."
The City noted tbat the ~y oftbc one witDes5; supplied by me umon was a
rare exception. Quite possibly. But, even this ODC ~Jt should DOt be p:esent.
The Special Magistrate urges the City innn,.q,.~ to use a more boDIs definition
of this term.
This is not to say that tbe City should bite only from a list of potentiIIl fDll-tim.e
employees as suggested by the Union. Nonetheless, temponIry employees sbould not
become, in =Uity, full-time wtXkas who do DOt m.e in ~.elilS or UDion membership.
31
.-.02-2005 11: 24AM . FRCM-AtnWl SENTERF I TT
+3mT4!0i5
T-485 P.036/050 F-249
R~..nmm~=
The Special Magist:ne asks the City Commi~sica to mIIintain its JOCrice of
hiring up to 30 tb11pulary c:mpIoya:s as the need arises. AI me same time. it should
adopt a policy whereby a te~-i employee could WCIt up to 40 hours per week over a
givC11 time-let's say a maximum of six months witbiD a period of 0IIe yea. The City,
then, would have to decide wbdhcr or not to hire this pcscn as a fWl-time CIIployee.
In this way, a tempoouy employee would be just dW-temporary. It could also
serve as a probatioDary period in order to see if the ~I% could serve the City as a
fuJI-lime wtdcr.
RANDOM DRUG TESTING
'0_';
As the HcariDg prop:ssed. tbis issue became rcsal\'ed through a Im~ 1
appreciation for the current times and combined ~Iitics of the City .. Union to
ensure the public a drug-free c:avinmment wbmcvcr an employee handles "Aiapons,
drugs or patiems.
Emplo~ subject to rsm4nm drug testing would be:
Ownmlll'iCltiom Operators
Complaint ~.au... IT
Crime Scene T~i~ I
Crime Scene T~cian n
Dispateher
Di3p8U'ber Trainee
Lifeguard 1
.'
32
,
JlI-lIZ-Z005 11: Z4AM F~AICERtIM SENTERF I TT
+3053T450i5
r-.e5 P. 0371050 F-Z49
J i~~rd n
Lifeguard LieuleDant
Police Photographer
Pool Guard I
Pool Guard n
PlOtblY EvideDce Technician I
~ Evidmce Tedmician n
Public Safety Specialist
ODiDion:
The Special Magistme IppJauds represcmatives of boIh me City _ die Union
for mcir cooperative approach to this timely subject.
~9!Qm~A~9Il=
The Special Magistrate asks the City Commi'l:llUwl to adapt the applicmon of
random drug testing as c:ndoncd. by both the City and 1bc Union for the jobs . outlined
above.
ACCREDITATION AND
CERTIFICATION PAY
In tmDS of .Accreditation Pay, as of now, police lad firefighters recene an
additional $50 per pay period becG~ they are members of an accredited dtt-twent.
The Union wants emplo~ in the Pub and Recreation Department to get die same
bonus. because this group, too, bas been acaedited by the National R.ccrc8tiaa md Pub
Association.
33
"
.-..oz-Z005 11: 24AM FD-AlaIiM SErf1'ERF I TT
+ao53T4!m
T-485 P.038/o5o F-249
The UnioI1 also noteS tbIr lifeguards aod odJm *' wodc in tbc two accredited
'" . deparunems do DCIC IeCeive this e=a pay. The Union asks that tbey, too, Rai ~e the
additional $50 per pay period.
In ~tiOD. tile Union seeks Cc:rtitication Pay of SSO per pay pc:rioclb
employees in me clatssificatiaos of Code Compliam:e ~ D and Code ec.pliance
~nistratars who obtain lad rn~in thcFACE Level ill and Code L.&...~t
Professional a:rritil!Sltions.
"lithe City wams to have more profnsioDal cmpk1yees," said Unicm Attorney
Supnnan. '"'tbey would want to eDCOUIage employees to _ higher ratings." Mr.
Su.ga.rman added that DObocly likes to see a code oompli,,'e officer. Tbae af&ets have
the unenviable position of ~""'""';"g code violations IUd oft'cring cilatioas.
The City refuses to aa:ept tbeUnion's proposal; City Attorney James Crosland
views this as only IDOtber ~ 'It ( to get a wage increase. The City feels m.
accreditation tor a patticular ...tmeat is given to the paofessiOl1a]s withiD me unit, not
to staff and c1erica1 employees. The added accm:litari~ pay, therefore, staaId DOt be
given to the suppoIt stat!:
The City says that if 20 employees feU into the <'RP)' of receiving Cc:rtitication
Pay, this would result in an i:acrease of$l,OOO per pay period or $20,000 C'X2ra per year.
Cutrently only five people woWd be eligible for the cam c:ni1ication pay.
Opinipn:
The Special Magistrate agrees wjth the Union in ORe respect and wiIh tbc City in
another.
'". _oIl
34
,
~2005 11 :Z4AM ~AIHIM SEJrTERrITT
+3n531'4SD15
T~ P.039/050 F-248
'-'
~ exna pay fer accrcditMion. the ~l Magimatc sides wiIh the
City. In me real world oftbe ~i1Mion process. Ibc pm6cssionals are the Q8eS who
come 'DJer the micro9cope. Tbcsc are the ~ tI.w~ wbo should recc:i~ the extra
pay.
"-
As to ceni.ficariOQ pay, the employee should teeeive the reward h hisIber
willingocss to iDcIcase skills aDd, as a result, value to tbe City. The City wOIlIkl be bettcr'
served with code COD1p1ianee oflicms who receive bcucr, mce sophisti.calal Dining.
Eaming credits toWard certi1k:ation should allow tbe ~yee to become beaer at
hisIhet job. n~.u~f\,rc. by 1l;W.uKug me cmplo~ who .-ins extra Mllt"~ with
certiftCation pay would, in the mind oftbe Special M_~~ prove to be a!llDUUd
investment for tbe City.
1be UDioc ctid not convince 1he Special ~~ctnIIIP! that employees in the Parks
and R.ecreation Dcparanem: sbould receive additional ~~"....JiMon pay.
Recoryunc:ndation:
For tbe reasous just cited. the Special MlIgiSf1'ldP. urges the City C~~ion to
adopt the Union's proposal for certification pay and the City's stance on acc:n!Ctitation
pay.
LIFEGUARDIPOOL GUARD
SCHEDULING
Cum:mly,1ifcgwuds and pool guards wozK an eigbr--bour day, five days a week.
The Union wisbcs 11) change 1hcse OD-duty times to 10 m.s a day, four days a week.
The CUy wishes to ~lIIinna;n the CUIl"CDt pmctice.
. ,
......
3S
"
.-.02-2005 11: Z4AM FDHKERWtIl SEmRF I TT
+3053745Ue
T.... P.04o/o50 F-W
The 11Dicx1 iDa'oduced Wmcu Green, a pool guild, wbo sbowed - pards
_./ working four 10-b0ur days would DOt only maimaitl the required safety of die pools, but,
in all probability, save the City some money.
The Union also sought to have a similar scbedule i1~ its lifeguards. Union
wimesses ttstifiecJ that by having the beach patrolled for 10, hours each day (as of now
they are patto11ed for eight hem during November, ~ber and January), some
drownings could have bccD avoided.
As to ~] expense to the City, the UnioI1l"~ that its plac would cost
the City an added $36.S88.34 per year.
The City, as it did carlic:r. cbaUeogtd the Uni.cG's estimav- of costS. 1be City
claims, instead. m. wUb the to-hour Y'b~e, an ~ODJl12lifeguards would have to
be hired; this would cost much more !ban the figure ci1I=d by the Union.
Opinion:
R.egantiugtbe pool guards, me Special Magi~ was impressed wish the
detailed ~nn of the Uoiou!. In spite oftbe City's ~ony to the '(,,~, Al j, he is
convinced that me UDion's plan could save money witbaut sacrificing me saic:ty oftbe
swimmers.
In tmnS of lifeguards. the Special Magi.stJ:me 1mly wrestled with Ibis issue.
Based on the chaI~gcd acClJtllq of~ous figures ~ at the HC8riDg by the
Union's econon,dl! CODSUltant. the Special MagisIraIe besirR~ to accept at flee value tbe
Union's projected costs to substittU'e its plan for the cum:m practice. At the same time,
he is keenly aware that we cm:mot place a price tag on 1be ulue of a human life.
,-","
36
..
.--02-2005 11: Z4AM FRaHtJaWll smERF I TT
+3ll53T45llI!l
T..., P.041/050 F-249
WauId my oftbe victims of Ol-owning bccD saved bad a lifeguard J*llXled the
. .... beach during the so-called "down" time? Nobody Jmows. But, the ~ cp:stion
remains. In 1bis ~... the Special Master would DIIbc:r ''sin on the side of pee."
RecQIJ1!"f'l'Wftttinn:
The nabc:r cooibm.g ~e of costs, plus e:ffi:ctiVCDeSS, plus potetJtiallife-
saving sjnllltlnnq causes dUs SpeciAl Magistrate to urge die City Conmtiq~ to initiate
the Union's plan far four 1 ()..bcm days for its pool pas IDd ~ far ~ full year.
Afterward, lcr n:speded l~t4C;p ..l.iuives from bo1h the Unicn and City, plus. least one
objective thiJ:d party, honestly review the figures and ~aine if this sbwI4 be a
continuiDg pactice or a l~-'P'" ft i solation.
In the ~ oflhc Special Magimuc, this is 1be m way in wbidl we'll
discover how ~ the Unkm pbm can be.
'-'
OSHA/ASBESTOS REMOVAL
PROCEDURES
The Union presented several instances in which DacCS ofasbcstos were
discovered wid1iD blJil4ir,8'l on which employees were ~deJed to wolk. ~
construction 01' repairs of cxistiDg facilities, a~ was fc,UDd either in loose tom or
contai4ed within WIIppings. The Union felt that this type ofworking ~ presents
an cn.jangerment to me health of employees assigned to *se properties. It, tberefore,
asked that prioI' to my conmuction and/or repair wOlk, the City survey each b8.i1ding. If
asbcstDs is deter1J1i:oed to be 1Aesent, then either to rid the blJi1ql"& of the !~ce or to
37
..
JlIH2-2005 11: 25AM FROlHKERlWl SENTERf I TT
+3O!3T4!D9!
T-485 P.04Z/050 F-249
notify emp~. In addition, lbc UDion asted that me City educatc ~ as to
how to recogDize asbestos and bow to deal with it if discovered.
The City ~ed by ~g that at anytime it ~ the preseace of asbestos
within a buUdiTlg. it ceased all activity until the tbreat was e mninate<J,
QpiniQD.:
OSHA has aImIdy o.lj~ for JDUDicipalitics the responsibilities it _ toward
preventing employees from ~mg mdsmr-cd due to die presence of a::A~,s. To
make such gui~ a part oftbe Collective BargainiDg A~t would add no
fUrther protection for employ=s Ed would only add to me volume of1he Ap'eement.
The Special Magisuate feels that the matter is akady addressed 1hl0UBh federal
law. It docs DOt have to be made a part of the Agreemc:at.
RecQJl1mPndMiaa.:
Tbat being said, so that Union members might fed more comfortabJe prior to
taking on the duties of constrUCtion and/or repair on a bIildiDg, the City sbould adopt a
practicc of iDspectiAg each buikliDg prior to any work beinB. assigne4 and, through a
writtcL'.l note to the employees. assure any wodter that the b- ,;~g bas been iDspected and
that it is free of asbestos or, ifttx:rc is asbestos presem, 10 infmm employees where it is
located.
TUITION REIMBURSL~NT
Section 8.24 oftbc CoUec:tive Bargaining ~t says:
The City's tuition refimd program sbllll be
COilri""ed for the term of the Agreemem.
"-
38
. --. -.--.--- -- .-....--- .........:- ,;;...;.._---~~
,.
"'
.u.ez-Z005 11 :Z5AM ~ SEJfl'ERF ITT
+amr4!!W
T..... P.043/o5o F-248
"....
The City wisba to t+-!" mis to read:
Tbc ~ agree 1hat lhc mition _~c
policy dated AIagI1St 26, 2004. shall ,,~ in
effect for the <PPtinn of the Agreal1nst
The AuguSt 26 policy to which the City !eferred ~~ 9Ol11f: spet;tic limits on
the amount of mcmey that can be peid for specific courses. Part of the C01U:ml by the
City lay in tbe fact 1hat it "ece4dy lost an .mtration ~ over some al~ unilateral
rules changc!s wUI:D1t bc::Ddit of colle:ctive bergt\ining
The Union coumcred widl me obscrvatiml that 1be. August 26 policy limits not
only the cost per comse. but me UlUnJ..c:r of coqrses lbIt may be taken wilbin a given
semester by an e:mp)oy=. In order for a lifeguard or pool pa-d to obtain m EMT
certificate, sometimes belshe is required to take more lhm <me course at a time.
The Union also p!mmnM lbosc present that tbe CDueztt language in the Collective
'." Bargaining AgrecDcm is id~l to that use in the FOP, IAFF and AFSCME
agreements.
Opinion:
It is in the best intereSt of the City to encourage lad foster advanced tDlining for
EMT and other ccrrin~ tbat will, in tbe long run, o&:.r JID'C protectioa. to me citi2ens
of~mi Beach. Any monies spent in tbae efforts will ~ly be the best iuvestmeatS
by the City.
Recorumentlmion:
The Special Magistrate asks that the City keep lhc c.~ language .. appears
in the Collective aarpning ~mmt, However, each c:mp1oyee should be limited to
~- .
39
.'
J.IIHZ-2005 11: Z5AM FROIHIlEPJIWl SEJn'ERF I TT
+amT4!508!
T..... P. 0<</050 F-248
takin& only ODe ccmsc per S(w- ~, mrJess a co-i~l)~~ cc.se and/or 18b -- be takm
in conjUDCtiou wi1h me ~ coarse.
THREE AND ONE HALF
OVERTIME PAY
Cu.u~, if a U:aioD emp1o)'et is schedv1Nl U) waX 011 a holiday, beI* receives
an additionall.S times bisIher pay. If. however, aD ~ is DOt !k"bedDled 10 work on
a holiday aud is caUed into wcxk, belsbe receives an ~ one-time bisIiIer pay.
The City 'Nisbg to chaDgc 1bis provision. If, says t!:Ic City, lID ~ is called
in to work duriDg a boliday tbat bel_ bad planned to tIke oft that empJo,ee _uld
rccci~c only 111 ~tiona11.S times bisIber pay. In 01tu:r lVarda, an employee who was
called in to wert would receive me same rate ofpay as would someone ~,~ to
.... worlc tbat holiday.
The Union pnXCSI-ed Anamey SUp""MI poiIPd oc mat when an employee is
callec:l from hisIber bame on a holiday, tbal employee's pIIDs 10 spend quality time with
tiunily and ftimds are COtnpl..miV!rl That employee, be SIld, should be (;&-41 [DSAted for
the added inconveu.i.eDce.
QpiDion:
This issue impIcts very few employees. nevenbdes:t, 1he Special u.c;lftate
aar=s with the UniaG. In fact, be sees no justifntion wbMsoevc:r for the City 10 propose
such a Ch&rlgf!. Calling an empJoyce from hisIba' home to wmk on a holiday imposes an
imposition on tbat wotker. AdcIirlorutl compe:asat:ion is caly ~.
40
y
.'
....Z005 11: Z5AM FROHKEM SEmRF I TT
+3O!3T45095
T-.e5 P,045/o5o F-24I
Recnmm""~:
'-..-" .
The Special Magistrate urges the City Cnn'm'IlcGnn to D'uritmtin the cmmt
practice in terms of this issue.
REPORTING PAY
Cuu~y, Section 7.8 of the Collective a.~..~ Agreement reads:
An ~'C who J.~ to weD: ai scheduled
will be ~1w-1 eight (8) hours ofWDlk or eight (8)
hams of pay; (or. fir 1hase 011 tm-baur a.,s. 1al hours
ofwOlk or tell of pay); provided, bowervel', m. supervisors
may assign c:mploy=s to perform any l' aVlll.,le
work.
The City urged its elimTnarioo front the Agreen~ bier.llse, in the wmds of Labor
Relatil3JlS Dir=or Linda Go~~. "This never ~.. Others for the City argued
that tbis Sectioa is obsolete aDd JUSt adds 11m'1ecessary wOId!s to the Conaxt.
1'bc Union testified mat this is a safeguard tbat pewnts the City from Gismissing
someone who has shown up for wmk on a particular day Wltbout the ob1i~ to pay the
employee for bis time aDd effort in tepOrting as scheduled
Opinion:
The Special Magistrate UDdcr'sDmds why the City coasi~ this p:ovisioI1 of the
Agreement as being "obsolere" in light of history. At the same time, be call !ICC the
concern expressed by Mr. Sllprt"stn for tbe Union. In 1be opinion of the Special
Magistrate, the second concern far outWeighs the bcodit SIlgcsted by me City.
'-'
41
..
..
Jll-GZ-Z005 11: Z5AM FRCM-A1lEM SENTERF I TT
+m374!5m
T'" P.046/050 F-248
,
.....
Recon~'
The ~SfJ ~~ asks tbe City Owmm-n.lD retain Section 7.8 in the
Agreem.em as it \;uuem:ly .~ s.
PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
The City h:JI.:rn4lJeed a memod by which good, ~ .ctive workers CDtId earn
more tban those wbo merely do just P-IV1IJgh to get by. "1t's a way to reward employees
based upon pe&bn~c," said Anamey Crnsl~ In sbatt, each Union ~ycc would
be: subjc:<:t to In enbumon JKDCCSS. SCates on these erT~~ woUld tha1 J- .. . .nine an
employee's wage iDcrease (if my) for the followiDg 1is:a1 yez.
'Ihc City iDIroduC"Q records of some scores of enln-v-... that were 11Ied to
determine raises b employees of other unious. Tbcse scores appeared to be DJCh
higher ~ the average for those whose raises WC1'C DOt ~dent upon J~ :.'!Y-
The Union believed that the c:uaeat sysrem of SICp ~ ~u.es bas wodFzd and
should remain. Tbe Union also stated mat in the \;UU ~ mcde of operatioa.. if 111
employee does DOt score SO% 011 ~ evsllmtrion) tbat employee does not receive a
step incIease in pay.
Qplnlnn:
1bc City ~ to imply that scoteS on the ~~oas for those wboge raises are
determined by the results are higbcr ~~ the ~ wodc:ed harder. Tbat may be
the ~on, but the Special J.fi\8~- suspects there is umch more to 1be suxy.
In the event an interviewer is rating an employee aDd that interviewer ~Jj7f'!q that
a hiaher score would result in larger salary iDaeases, that ilw:rvicwer would be tempted
.......,
42
r'
.-.o2-Z005 11: 26AM ~ SEIfTERf ITT
+3053T4!Da5
T-485 P.047/050 F-249
to give high=- nd:1..~. To c...'l....t.lhc scores gtvm by two setS ofintcrviewa's--one
grolJp wbo knows 1bat the raUags will affect salaries _ .~ group who bows the
ratings will bave lime, if any. effect 011 salaries--violaa::s die mQsmlental rules of sound
statisticaJ analysis. In a llJ11:5beU. it's c.-a,paritlg apples with oranges.
The Special Master, ~ore, was I10t ~~ ths the City's p1w:a b' "pay for
performance" will p-oduce any ~ benefit to the empoyecs or to the City.
'R H!n1T'lTnM'lm.non:
The Special Magistrate eDCOUIageS the City C~:$ion to maimain 1be status
quo in this msmJct'.
CONTRACTING OUT
In an effort 10 expedite CODSUlU:tion or other watt lmIbJe to be ~~~ by
Union members, the City wishes to contract OUT as~K""--vt-; and, in the evc:m any Union
employee is laid oft', the City will only have to ask the DeW coattactor to give tile Union
mc:mber first cocsidcntion for cy available wOIk. This cti:ffets from the \;wu.~
Ag:reemeDt that stacs that a Union nyomber is to be the fixst consideration to be hired by
the conll'aCtOr.
The Union strongly opposed this. '"It's just anodII:lr plaG to cut back oa me
UniOn,'1 said Attomey Sugarman.
Opinion:
The Special Magistrate may not go as far as A.nDJ:Dey Sugarman and sugest that
this is a carefully coaceived plaa by me City to undermiDe me Union. At 1hc Imle time,
the cun'Cllt procedure in which jobs of Union members ~in protected in me event of
....~
43
,.
J1IH2-2005 11 : 26AM FRaHKERIIWI SEmRF I TT
+3OS3T4!m
T-485 P.048/050 F-ZA8
contr~..ting Out seems to work well. There was DO jusl a\. ~ "'" presented by 1be City to
_.' alter the existing J:IIocedu..~.
Recol1'l'l"~ation:
The Special Magistrates rew-1'1'~S no ctumgJ! in me cunent A.grc:c:mmt as to
this issue.
EMT LIFEGUARD PAY
As of now, 1ifcgualds (wbo are in the Ocean R.csc:ue Division and rc:part to the
. Fire Chief) with EMT cen:ificatioo. receive S% extra pay. On lhc other haad, firefighters
with EM'! cenification receive 1 ~% extra pay just ~.. they have EMT
Certification. Those who are AScrigJ1ed fUll-time to me Fire Rescue Divisioo _ bave
.~
been on the force for at least one year, receive an ~l 5% pay the first )leIl' and 9%
extra for each year tbcrcafter. The Union wants the same C~cation Pay to be paid to
lifegu,atds with EMT certiti~
The City countfted with 1bc observation 1hat tber:e arc no firefighters JeCeiving an
extra S% or 90/0. Were the City to adopt the Union's ..oipOSal,. it would cost me City an
extra $67,000 per year.
. Opinion:
In reality, no firefighter receives the 90~ extra pay-a fact supported by Union
representatives. As a result, the Special Magistrate can see DO justification ill altering the
existing policy.
. ...
44
II ,.
JlIH2-ztIQ5 11 :Z6AM F~ smERfITT
+amr~
r...... P. 0491050 F-Z49
R~m~'
The Special Magi5U*S urges the City Cv...1.1i ...., make 110 .111 ~ in the
current practice.
CONCLUSION
SiJ:Ice 2003. the City aad me UDion have beca r{klY~ to tbe puI~ IT .rj of
working wi1bou:t a Collective BIrV-;,I;lIg ~. Such aD ~ pJerates
uneasiness, suspit":jnnJ rumors aDd a spirit Ofcooftt"l~ rMberthan ~....,jse.
Both sides, in tbe ~ oftbe Special ~~~J cdnbitcd a wfnv~ess to
settle and, at the same time, ~~nll;',dt COI4mt to dig-in 1IIdr beds (~ !DIne
speciflC issues.
Both sides tledicated loa& boa:rs to these dirn-itwK. The Special Magisttate
"-"
marvels attbeirwiUingness to curb 'e.I'~S aDdl1'Ainmin a'\ aunospbete at
profcs.~on.sq;!Un
In the beat of discussion, represealatives from bcIh ~ are often ""'f,..-d to
resort to ad hominem ~ to pettifhggin& ;md to nMiM..nott. Tbe ~al
MagistrateS wishes to go on record of~ bad1 ~ Attorney
Crosland and A1:u1mey Sugamum-in their efforts to keep all of these to a ~um.
Tbrougbout the years of dclibe:rations. fetol1n~ baw been hurt. A~rions have
been made. The Special Master realizes that the lack oflrU!t is the slowest wound to
heal. However, be urges both sides to put the past bebiQd them and to ~ torward to
ensure an even brigbrer fu11Ire fCII'the City of Miami BeIdI The City, in his gpinion, bas
-
4S
"''';'1 ,
.--oz-Z005 11: Z6AM F.AKERWIt SEmRF I TT
+3O!3T45lJe
T-485 P.050/050 F-249
a soUIJd ~1 footing, a ~ City ~,qnnJ a "'-i!m!~c, pro@t~:ve City
Manager and an ~~ce oftalcm amoug its WCqtfua~
The Special Magisuatc bas eujoyed his expc:ric:D=s with both sides in lbis effort.
While is di~iDted 1hat an ~ could not be ~ M at the bau.p~ table, he
does ~tion tbe City Corm'njCl~ to consitier his ~ n. .ri~~sn;oDS and bJpa that they
will as3ist in me fwmul~rion of 1m acceptable Collective Blrpining Agreemcur
May 28, 2005
Pon Orange, Florida
C. McCollister, PILD.
. Magistrate
46