HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/1984 Item #I-1"RECFHEO AFTER A6EflDAPR�s. r-� •
July 23, 1984
Mayor and Members of the City Council:
LI BY THE Cm COUNCIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
JUL 231984
�'L - C(
My name is Irene Butler, Vice President of the Newport Beach City
Employees Association.
M
Mel Koehn, President of the NBCEA could not be here tonight, but in
his stead I would like to address the Council regarding the
Association's decision to go to Impasse.
There are major issues and minor issues over which the Association
and the City disagree, and of these issues the Association has gone
to impasse over:
1) The weighted formula that the City has chosen to -determine
salary compensation; and
2) The Comparable Worth Study.
With regard to the first item, as stated in the Association's
letter to Council, "none of the employees associations of the City
were given advance notice as required by City Resolution No. 7173."
If the City makes policies and regulations capriciously, then a
pattern of mistrust is set. When a citizen does not comply with a
City resolution or ordinance, the City issues a warning.
Thereafter fines are imposed if there is disregard towards
compliance. This is also the established method of County, State
and Federal entities.
- z -
With regard to the second item, the Comparable Worth Study has the
support of the NBCEA. The City has gone on record to "monitor"
further developments. Webster's definition of monitor is "to
check, watc , observe." Assembly Bill 1580 (Klehs), attached, is
a law signed by Governor Deukmejian which became effective January
1, 1984, to address that "(1) Existing law does not prohibit a
local agency from adopting an ordinance or policy which prohibits
setting salaries for its employees on the basis of comparability of
the value of the work, as defined, This bill would prohibit a local
agency from adopting, or continuing in effect, an ordinance or
policy which prohibits consideration of comparability of the value
of the work as a factor in salary negotiations. It would impose a
state -mandated program by prohibiting a local agency which has such
an ordinance or policy from continuing it in effect."
The present methods used by the City of setting salaries and
compensation paid for comparable (like) classifications in other
jurisdictions based on surveys and market conditions, discriminates
against those employees in female -dominated classifications, as
these salaries are, on a large part, determined by males.
0 •
- 3 -
When I addressed the Council on July 9, some of the feedback was a
comment by one of the Council Members, who stated that the City was
"locked -in," (committed?) to J-1 for this fiscal year, and that the
City's position to "monitor" the comparable worth concept was made
on the basis that the City was looking for standardization.
Together, the NBCEA and the City, with qualified technical
assistance, would be in a better position to determine what should
be evaluated and the factors that go into the evaluation, rather
than having some outside drgafrization imposing their values and
judgment as to what determines the worth of jobs. The National
Academy Sciences' Study, "Women, Work and Wages -Equal Pay for Jobs
of Equal Value" is a report of the National Academy Committee that
studies this issue, which is a good summary with technical
solutions.
At this very moment one pf the J-1 Cities (Huntington Beach) has
already included in their 1985 Fiscal Year salary negotiations,
that "the comparability of the value of the work performed shall be
evaluated" as one of the factors to be considered during salary
negotiations. This, in turn, will affect the City of Newport
Beach's salary negotiations in the future.
•
- 4 -
is
The Police and Fire Associations have gone before the City Council
several times regarding their salary negotiation differences, and
have not been penalized for being at impasse. This is the first
time during my 10 years with the City that the NBCEA has "aired"
salary negotiation differences, and has weighed the decision on
impasse very carefully. I don't believe that anyone could dispute
the fact that the clerical staff is the "backbone" of
the City Departments.
Participation in salary negotiations has been a learning experience
for all concerned. The Association appreciates the opportunity to
come before Council and we hope that the "doors to communication
remain open."
Thank you!
./
Attachment
CHAPTER
g 906
act to add Article 28 (commencing with Section 53247) to
r*u #Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government
5 ` is'' r Yeiatmg to
localM government
[Approved by Coveme, September 19, 1983 Fled with
its2 ,3� x, Secretary of State September 19, 19831 -^
..
"LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS 610ESI' r i;
AB 158, Klehs. Local governmentssalaries. i
(1) Existing law does not prohibit a local agency from adopting an '
ordinance or policy which prohibits setting salaries for its employees
on the basis of comparability of the value of the work, as defined
This bill would. prohibit a local agency from adopting, or
continuing ,in effect; an ordinance -or policy which prohibits
consideration of comparability of the value of the work as a factor in
'salary negotiations. It would impose a state-mandated program by
'prohibiting a local agency which has such an or or policy
from continuing it in effect.
(2) .Article XIII B of the California Constitution and Sections 2231
and 2234 of the Revenue and Taxation Code require the state to
_ reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Other provisions require the Department of
Finance to review statutes disclaiming these costs and provide, in
' ;certain cases, for making claims to the State Board of Control for ,.
reimbursement.
A ;.;However; this bill would provide that no appropriation is made '
and no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows
1.
SECTION 1. Article 2,8 (commencing with Section 53247) is
addedto Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the '
Government Code, to read:
Article 2.8. Comparable Pay
'. 53247. As used,in this article, "local agency" means any count
City, city and county, including any,
y charter county, city, or city and '
' county, and' any district, school district, municipal or public
corporation, political subdivision, or public agency of the state, or any
instrumentality of one or more of any such agencies.
53248. (a) No.local agency shall adopt or continue in effect an
ordinance or policy which prohibits consideration of comparability
Of the value of the work as one of the factors which may be used
d
44V 40 .
.. - iGt.Tvl3M'�iMtYJ
Y1IYURG c l 44AliYOM333A .
Ch. 976 T. tt�4ity3
during the collective-bargaining process to negotiate salaries. '
Existing memoranda of understanding, presently in effect, would
continue to control until they expire. Thereafter, there shall be
negotiations in accordance with this article.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) "Comparability of the value of the work" means the value of
the work performed by an employee, or group of employees within
a class or salary range, in relation to the value of the work of another
employee, or group of employees, to any class or salary range
maintained by a local agency, and shall be measured by the
composite of the skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions
rmance of the work with other classes
normally required in the perfo
of employees.
(2) "Skill" means the skill required in the performance of the
work, including any type of intellectual or physical skill acquired by
the employee through experience, training, education, or' natural .
ability.
.(3) "Effort" means the effort required in the performance of the
work, including any intellectual or physical effort.
(4) "Responsibility" means the responsibility required in the
performance of the work,. including the extent to which the
employer relies on the employee to perform the work, the
importance of the duties, and the accountability of the employee for
the work of others and for resources.
(5) "Working conditions" means the conditions under which the
work of an employee is performed, including physical or
psychological factors.
SEC. 2. .No appropriation is made and no reimbursement is
required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the
California Constitution or Section 2231 or 2234 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code because the Legislature finds and declares that there
are savings as well as costs in this act which, in the aggregate, do not
result in additional net costs.
M
.. - 94 WI
0
Newport Bea"Ept.NFmployees Association
3300 Newpor 0M1*, # Rr "ach, California 92663
The Honorable Evelyn
Mayor of the City of
Newport Beach, Ca.
Dear Mayor Hart:
JUL 231984
R. Hart
Newport Beach
I am writing to inform you that I regret
Newport Beach City Employees Association and
Beach have reached an impasse in their salary
1984-85 fiscal year.
July 13, 1984
the fact that the
the City of Newport
negotiations for the
Both Mr. Mota and Mr. Burkhart have worked in an effort to
reach a solution to our problems, but we feel that the instruct-
ions that they have received do not allow them to negotiate in a
proper manner. This is the first year that we have been faced
with the weighted average concept. We feel that this is unfair
because it was weighted only one way, and that way favors the City
of Newport Beach. Although we requested it, there was no consider-
ation given to weighting it both ways. You can readily understand
that the cities that salaries are compared with in J-1 have many
more employees than we do. To weight it the other way would re-
sult in a higher salary adju§ment for our -people. This would be
a definite disadvantage for I;* City of Newport Beach and we did
not expect that it would be used. We want the same formula to be
used as we have in the past. This formula should not have been
used without advance notice according to Council Resolution #7173,
adopted on April 31, 1970, which I quote:
SECTION 18. Advance Notice. Except in case of emergency
each Recognized Employee Organization affected shall be given
written notice of any resolution, rule or regulation directly
relating to matters within the scope of representation pro-
posed to be adopted.by the City Council and shall be given
the opportunity to meet with the City Representative prior
to its adoption.
None of the employee groups in the city were given any notice
as required by this resolution and the formula used this year was
not negotiable. We made several attempts to negotiate this item
and our requests were refused. The salary offer is the same at
this date as it was when we first began to negotiate.
• Page 2
It seems that the City Council sees fit to ignore their own
resolution while I tried to abide by those in our Memorandum of
Understanding by not approaching the City Council while it was in
force. I believe in complying with regulations as they are written.
According to Lorenzo Mota's interpretation of J-1 policy that was
introduced at a study session.on March 22, 1982 there is no mention
of a weighted average system. We were never advised that this was
to be used. According to Council Resolution #7173 we should have
been given written notice that this rule was to be implemented
prior to negotiations.
We also understood that the salaries, as used for J-1, from
other cities would be actual figures, not estimates. In the case
of the Deputy City Clerk in Anaheim this was not true. The City
of Newport Beach estimated this salary to be $2064.88. In check-
ing this figure with Mr. Walter Jerz of the City of Anaheim payroll
department I found that they are actually paying this person the
salary of $2115.00 per month. This made the amount that our group
is down 7.45% compared with 7.35% when using the City of Newport
Beach estimate. With adjustment for fringe benefit costs our salary
adjustment should be. 8.35%.
Our group feels that Comparable Worth is something that is
required, and we would like to have a study made on'this matter.
I respect the judgement of the City Council by not blindly rushing
into the implementation of this program without a study. In the
same manner I feel that this is a subject that is not .going to go
away, and should not be ignored. At some point, in the not too
distant future, the City of Newport Beach, along with other cities,
may be compelled by law to comply with such a measure. To under-
take such a study at this time would indicate that you are inter-
ested in getting all of the information that you can on this matter.
It would benefit the City of'Newport Beach to have this information
in advance to consider the financial impact involved.
I sincerely hope that our differences can be resolved amicably
for the benefit of everyone concerned. We feel that any salary ad-
justment should be made retroactive to June 23rd. The threat of
not having any agreement made retroactive does not seem fair. We
have made offers to the City of Newport Beach several times. The
fact that they were not willing to negotiate should not be used
as a form of punishment for this group.
Yours truly;
Mel Koehn
President
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PERSONNEL OFFICE
BY HEy
TC?d WIAIL
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL JUL 23 1984 AGENDA ITEM I. 1.
FROM: Lorenzo Mota
Personnel Director
SUBJ: MEET & CONFER FY 84/85 - NEWPORT BEACH CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NBCEA)
BACKGROUND: The City Negotiating Team and representatives from the Newport
Beach City Employees Association (NBCEA) have been conducting meet -and -confer
sessions in an effort to reach a settlement for Fiscal Year 84/85. The repre-
sentatives from both teams have been unable to reach agreement for Fiscal Year
84/85.
DISCUSSION: On July 11, 1984, the City made its best and final offer to the
City Employee Association. The City's final offer was presented to and not
accepted by the City Employees Association Negotiating Team. A comparison
of the two positions is made in Attachment "1". The two significant points
of disagreement are as follows:
1. The City's offer consists of a weighted 6.0% total compensation
increase for Fiscal Year 84/85. The salary increase will be
effective July 21, 1984. However, it is the position of the
Association that the total compensation increase not be weighted.
In lieu of a weighted total compensation increase, the Association
will accept an 8% salary increase across-the-board and retroactive
to June 23, 1984.
2. Comparable worth: The City will monitor State and local activities
on this issue and report to City Council as appropriate. The
Association wants the City to proceed immediately with a study so
as to compensate all employees on a basis of "comparable pay for
comparable work" as used by the City of San Jose at this time.
The total cost of the two positions is compared as follows: City $110,602
- the cost of the City Employee Association's position is unknown.
Not included in the City's best -and -final offer was the City's proposal for a
feasibility study in FY 84/85 of whether the position of Deputy City Clerk
should be part of "Key Personnel". The Association negotiating team was.in-
decisive on this issue and subsequently rejected the City's offer. The City
then withdrew this item from the negotiating table.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the discussion of this report, it is recommended that
effective July 21, 1984, the attached resolution be approved which implements
the following:
1. Total compensation increase: 6.0%
2. The salary schedule for the Newport Beach City Employees Association
shall be established as listed in Attachment "A".
(next page)
-2
CITY EMPLOYEE ASSOC.(Continued)
3. On or about October 1, 1984, the City agrees to reopen the
meet -and -confer process to meet and confer on the issues of
modifying the current health insurance plan and providing a
retiree health insurance plan. The City shall limit the
reopener to these items and to those items which may be
affected should agreement be reached.
4. On or about February 1, 1985, the City shall request an
Actuarial Study from the Public Employees Retirement System
on the one-year highest compensation benefit for Miscellaneous
employees only. This study will not commit the City to modify-
ing the P.E.R.S. contract for the benefit.
5. Family sick leave: The City will amend the current sick leave
provision to allow employees to use five (5) eight (8) hour
sick leave days for illness of spouse, son or daughter that
requires the presence of the employee.
6. Resolution period: July 21, 1984, to June 21, 1985.
O
yH
O
r
r
In
A
In
A
W
n
N
F•
E g
9 m o O' n 6 •On
n
gry
n
o 0 b�
9 9 9
n
,S
p m 0 m Y
gyW
E d m r
,9 C Y 0 m
6 W
b
n
n E E
O H n mm S rpm
q
gg
•O
m G Y
M
y
o []
�w
N 0 mW n p
n
OW
o
µ0.p.m
v m Y 4 R m T m F•
P
m-miny
m m
m
m
m
W •Y m.
• H M m � m w `C
m m T m m P w
d
nH
n
mm n
g
R a W
O
O
n{gr..d SYnP
O�w
m m m Y H
T n n� v m p' S
b
a
n T
t ml m F•
m o
mm
9
mpy
GO
Im-'Mm n� w
o
o
m�mm��mR
O•
x W n
d
`C
m
n
m
q
9
O
A W O m
r y n p• A
11
n 9 m m m O �C n Y
µ
n
Y
r
9
w n a n H m C n
rt m S m C
n
T r H p N 0
m S S
n
o E m
O
O
O
µ
Y
w µ p
O m O H O m
m
m
y
�!
O
•C T
p
tl
• m 0 nT O
tl
0.r ^
gg
0 n N 0 R1 0 0 0
C
µ
R
H O
O
n L F`n
O r+
m H m rn
Mm MM w 'm
m n
y
A
p r O
00 w H
w n 0
O Y M
A
C r m
O O
gg O m S M O. H
M m
M F•
0.n 0
K H H m
n
P
O y
0
3�m9m0
O m y m H
m
O. dy P 0
m
fy
d
d
H n
w 8 m 0 H m rt m
6 F+ F+ m m
m p M m
p n F• H O.
n O
N n O
H m m O m
R n
w
m
n
0 0 0
O O m
M m m '•O p
m d N m
m H S tl M Y
fi 'O
O T4 m
H m
O
m
O
d
O
g
'[J
�C Y m m m
Y m rt n
O O n
m w
m
m m
n m m
w y r
O
W 1n G O H n
m
" m O H E H
"o m O
M O m P O C
C mm
rt w m
r m.
. K
m '9 m G
r Y •
n n H C K
F• n
N
n VM H n O n
Y. r
(�D H
r
O
Y
m S g y p Y
m O m O Y
m w n p m m m
N p
n
L
O
tl
W
O m
H1 m r n Y
y
O
Y
O
O
P M
E
m O T y
n m F m
m µb m µ
E
tl
O
m H
r
In
A
N
F•
n
P
d
o O^
S O
gry
,S
p m 0 m Y
gyW
E d m r
,9 C Y 0 m
O
p d 0. µ M O
F• O
gg
M
y
o []
d
d
µK
�C
mnP HFY
mHHOnNC
n{gr..d SYnP
µY
a
9
GO
nm RH YrH
Sm S�Cm
m�mm��mR
HH
d
`C
m
n
m
q
9
O
A W O m
r y n p• A
Y w O m 0
n H C m n
n n C m gg
S$
m m
A
S
w 0
m
rt m S m C
S H
T r H p N 0
m S S
d 6
H
O
2
q. H
µ
g[A
m
K H 0.m n
0.A m
m
m
y
�!
�+
rPI n t1 Omo
H O 0. H H
• m 0 nT O
OR
K
C
µ
R
H O
O
n L F`n
O r+
m H m rn
TK n 0 OW
m n
y
A
b
w n 0
O Y M
A
C r m
O O
gg O m S M O. H
M m
M F•
pf
C
P
O y
0
3�m9m0
O m y m H
rN PN
H H O m m
w'Owmm
m
fy
d
d
H n
p
6 F+ F+ m m
m p M m
p n F• H O.
n O
m
n
n
M m m '•O p
m d N m
m H S tl M Y
fi 'O
O
H
O
m
O
d
O
g
'[J
�C Y m m m
Y m rt n
O O n
n m n
0
n O
r w m b
�+ H
m m
w y r
O
W 1n G O H n
m
" m O H E H
"o m O
M O m P O C
C mm
r m.
. K
m '9 m G
Ri m CL G
n n H C K
F• n
N
n VM H n O n
Y. r
r
O
Y
m S g y p Y
m O m O Y
m w n p m m m
N p
O
O m
H1 m r n Y
p m n C p
m µ m 0
Y
Y
L Y
E
m O T y
n m F m
m µb m µ
tl
d
P
O
n w
O
K
'Am`G Y41y
y n m O w n
m mn
Y O
•I'n Y'pm Mn
O m w Y C O
Yn
p n C
O m m M
FB p w m H
y m
p0
K
Y n
S
n 0.m m fY
10 d r v
Y m p m d
F m
gg
Y
w
O`Gn N 9�C
v
ng
P G< H
m m
6 nal
m
w
m
n
T O M
H µm N O K
S O C
m H 9
d p yy p I m m
pK
V m
n o c p o
nH
m y a
W 650. m
H m 9 o m
to
rt
n m
F~^
n tl`HG vo,8
H vm
A Oro 010.+0 0
n m
n 1 1 0
a
o
m
K
µ
H
m
d
n
N
N
A
r
°
m
F,
tl
O
pn
m
r