Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutI-1 - Meet and Confer Fiscal Year 84/85 - Newport Beach City Employees Association (NBCEA)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 "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