Minutes 1992 0305 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - March 5, 1992 Page - 3 - PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Rungis said the second meet-and-confer session was held on February 25, 1992. He said Mr. Burdick presented alternative language to the City ballot measure (Attachment A) . He said the language was reviewed and it was determined that, philosophically, it did not meet the employer's need to protect the City's interest. He said an adjustment was made to the City's proposal (Attachment I) , and Mr. Burdick asked for an opportunity to review the proposal further and respond with a written proposal . Mr. Rungis said the dates February 26, 27, 28, 29 and March 1st were offered for a meeting. Mr. Rungis said the third meet-and-confer session was held on March 2, 1992. He said Mr. Burdick offered a language proposal (Attachment K) , and it was pointed out that this language was substantively different than what was needed for the City to protect its vital interests. He said the City then had a caucus and reviewed what had transpired during negotiations--and---the- statutor-y_•time_constraints_.the _employer was facing. He said it was hoped this'matter—would be—brought before the City Council on March 2nd, but due to the statutory limitations and the fact that the parties were not agreeing, the City felt it was necessary to declare impasse and did so by giving Mr. Burdick and his clients a letter that day. Mr. Rungis said California's labor-dispute process is not perfect but must be followed. He said one of the steps is that the Municipal Employees Relations Officer (MERO) must schedule a meeting, which was scheduled for March 4, 1992, at 9:00 a.m. Mr.Rungis said, at that meeting, he asked if the POA and FFA felt they could concur with the employer's language as proposed after the modifications. He said it was indicated that the FFA/POA negotiating team did not have the authority to accept that position. Mr. Rungis said he therefore stated this matter could not be resolved, thus impasse was declared and this matter must appear before the City Council pursuant the Employer- Employee Relations Resolution. He said the Personnel Director sent Attachment N to the City Clerk requesting the Special City Council meeting. Mr. Rungis referred to Document 2, Differences Between Proposals at Last Meet and Confer Session (3/2/92) . He said the City feels that, in the event the City makes a last, best, final offer and the arbitrator awards something in excess of that offer, the voters should determine if that award is appropriate or not. He said Mr. Burdick's wording places a 25% corridor, but Mr. Rungis did not know on what base that 25% would apply and this was not acceptable in these economic times. Mr. Rungis said Mr. Burdick's language proposed that the arbitrator's award only go to a vote of the people if it is 25% higher and the City Council votes by a vote of 5 out of 7 for it to do so. He said Mr. Burdick's language proposes that the City's measure would only go into effect if the Hathaway amendment to the City Charter is approved. Mr. Rungis said Mr. Burdick's language proposes that the matter only go before the voters if a special tax is imposed or if the appropriations- limit is increased. Mr. Rungis said there are substantive differences between the two sides.