Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28-Personnel -- -- -- C I T Y o P SAN B E R ~ A R D INTEROFFICE MEMORAN~UM 8601-717 ~~~~ INO--' TO: Honorable Mayor and Common Council FROM: Mary Jane perlick, Director of Personnel SUBJECT: Public Hearing Impasse Resolution on Modification Denial (Agenda Item No. 28) Unit DATE: January 16, 1986 (6591) COPIES: Ray Schweitzer, Deputy City Administrator; Jack Matzer, City Administrator The above Hearing was continued from the January 6, 19B6 Council Meeting. During that meeting, Council directed that a survey of similar size cities be performed to indicate their bargaining unit placements of Police Safety support type employees. This survey is attached and marked "A". No City in the study has a special Police Safety support type unit. The closest model to such a unit was found in the City of Fremont. But even in Fremont, not all Police support personnel are in the same unit. Data attached and marked "B" is taken from City Resolution 10584, and refers to the "community of interest" needed to grant unit modification and notes 5 factors. Item "C" is a summary sheet, speaking to the 5 factors as viewed by the City's designated representative. This sheet also restates two possible decisions by Council. The continued impasse hearing requires no particular format. The following format could be used, however: I Open Hearing and determine if the Petitioner or AFSCME representative have additional data/state- ments for the Council. II Hear statements/receive data (as applicable) III Close hearing Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~RY ~NE PERLICK Director of Personnel MJ :jr Attachment 28 Survey of" 186" Cities as to placemerrt of Pol ice "safety Support" type classes in a bargaining unit. Questions: "Do you have a special type (non swoen) eli:ployees? If not, placed?" popul-ation Special Name Size ,.. JJnjt? ( rounded) Ontario 104,000 No Pomona 105,000 No Concord 105,000 No Berkeley 106,000 No Fullerton 107,000 No unit for your Police Safety support in what bargaining unitls) are they . -""..........-...- . - In What Unit are Safety Support BllPP9rt-r~-X~Qouel Placed? "Miscellaneous" Unit "General" Unit (no response) (no response) Clerks and Dispatchers are "General" Unit. I.D. Techs the "Police" Unit with officers. in the are in sworn Hodesto 123,000 No "Miscellaneous" Unit Pasadena 125,000 No Garden Grove 129,000 No Bakersfield 130,000 No San Bernardino 131,000 135,000 No Torrance Fremont 143,000 No Glendale 147,000 169,000 180,000 No No Stockton No Riverside Huntington Beach 180,000 No Santa Ana 223,000 No Anaheim 233,000 No "General" Unit Assistants and I.D. are unrepresented. except Police Techs - which "Miscellaneous" unit "White Collar" Unit "Crafts and Trades" Unit or "City Employees Association" ~enera~ Unit "General unit" for Police Clerks and the "Police Non-Sworn Associa- tion" for I.D. Techs and Community Service Officers. "General" Unit "Miscellaneous" Unit "Miscellaneous" Unit and "PEARC" for Dispatchers "Miscellaneous" Unit for all except Dispatcher, which is in the "Po_ lice" unit "Miscellaneous" Records Clerks, "Police" Unit Unit others for are Police in the "Clerical" or "General" Unit * California Cities within a population group of lOO,OOl - 250,000 as per the "Annual Report" of K. Cory, State Controller - for 1983-84. 1/14/86 A- 28 - SECTION 10 OF RESOLUTION 10584 SECTION 10: Criteria for Recognition in an Appropriate Unit (A) The designated City Representative, after reviewing the petition filed by an employee organization seeking formal recognition as a majority representative shall recommend to the Mayor and Common Council whether there is a co~~unity of interest among the units or employees of ...... such organTiation. The following factors, &long others, are to be con- sidered in making such recommendation: 1. Which unit or employee'organization will assure employees the fullest freedom in the exercise of rights set forth~under this Resolution. 2. The history of the unit or employee organization in representing employees. 3. The effect of the.unit or employee organization on the efficient operation of the City and sound employer-employee relations. 4. The extent to which the employees have common responsibilities. 5. The effect on the existing classification structure of dividing a single classification among two or more units or employee organizations provided, however, that no unit shall be established on the sole basis of the extent to which employees in the proposed unit have been previously organized. (B) In recognition of employee organizations: 1. Professional employees shall not be der.ied the right to be represented separately from -non-professional employees; and 2. Management and confidential employees who are included in the same unit with non-managenent or non-confidential enployees may not represent such cmploy~es on matters within the scope of representation. (3- 28 SUMMARY There is an insufficient community 01 interest to permit the carve out of a safety support type unit from the General Unit. 1. "Fullest Freedom": The General Unit provides the fullest freedom for the employees therein. Splitting or carving away a portion of the unit would create two smaller units. While the petitioner may feel that the carve out may give fuller freedom to those in the new Safety Support unit, such a carve out would have a negative effect on the strength of the remaining General unit. 2. "Unit History": 'iThe General Unit as it stands now has remained unchanged as a whole since its inception, except for the agreement which more properly placed the supervisors outside this unit, several years ago. In the last 5 years, 3 at- tempts have been made to modify the unit in the same manner currently proposed. In each attempt, the modi- fication was denied by the City. 3. "Effect on the City and Sound Employer/Employee Rela- tions": There is no evidence to show that the unit modification requested would have a positive effect on the efficient operation of the City or be sound in terms of good employer-employee relations. I believe it would have a negative effect. 4. "Common Responsibilities": The employees in the proposed Safety Support unit have very few responsibilities which are different from those in the General Unit itself. Working for a particular department does not so separate a group that a new unit is warranted. 5. "Effect on Classification Structure": As previously reported, only 8 of the 20 classes in the modification petition are strictly Police Department classes (401). This means that 12 (60%) classes would be split, and we would have, for example, "Police Typist Clerk" and "General Typist Clerk". The effect on the classification system would be substantial. ACTION BY COUNCIL: 1. To uphold the Director of Personnel's decision to deny the requested unit modification and confirm the existing General unit as the most appropriate unit for General employees OR 2. To make a decision in favor of the unit modification. 1-16-86 C-28 ..... ,.. CI I>II>A~TMINl, /'>..' ...... ""l . . " .. """ ....:~.. ... V')', .... "It:- . v ~. h '0 SAN ~I~NA I>IN() I>(): ~INlflT AU()UATI()N PHONE 383.S011 MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 202 SAN 8ERNARDINO, CA 92402 tL~ W SAN 8ERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENl 466 WEST 4TH ST. SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92401 January 15, 1986 Councilwoman Esther Estrada First Ward City of San Bernardino 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 Dear Councilwoman Estrada: This letter is to answer certain questions that were raised by the City Council at the open meeting of 1-6-86 at City Hall. All of the questions raised were relevant and we feel that it is in the best interest of the City and all concerned if these questions could be answered prior to the next meeting on 1-21-86. There were several basic questions asked by the Council at the meeting. They are indicated below. (1) Why are these people unique? We would like to, again, give you several reason on why we feel that the civilian employees at the Police Department is a unique entity within the general employees 9rouP of the City. The non-sworn employees of the Police Department, are the only employees, other than police officers, that are routinely required to submit to polygraph examinations and complete criminal history backgrounds as a pre-employment requirement. Some of the non-sworn employees of the pol ice department are required, due to the nature of their employment, to drive marked police unit, carry a caseload, guard and safekeep the property of others, go to crime scenes, handle evidence, take pol;ce reports (criminal and traffic), attend P.D.S.T. approved training classes for certification. These non-sworn employees of the police department have, in the past, had shots fired at them, have assisted in the arrest of felony suspects and, in short, done work side by side with sworn police officers. There are no other Jobs in the City where people try to intentionally injure an employee. The non-sworn employees of the Pol ice Department work a schedule that is simi hr to those of the sworn employees. Some Jobs r) require 24-hours a day, 7-day a week coverage. Some employees are 'z) *)J January 15, 1986 Page 2 on-call during their off time, and also non-sworn employees are subpoened into court and, on a fairly regular basis, testify just as sworn officers do. Non-sworn employees of the police department have to assist in searching of prisoners, in escorting prisoners to restroom facilities and, in general, do work that is not done by any other general employees in the City. The non-sworn employees, through the scope of their employment, are subject to civil and criminal prosecution for misuse of information that they handle daily in their job assignment. These are just a few of numerous jOb differences that could be poi nted out between non-sworn employees of the pol ice department and other general employees of the City, but due to time and length of this letter, we feel that it would not be appropriate to list everything in this letter at this time. (2) What other cities have this type of unit? (That the non-sworn employees are represented by thei r respective pol ice officers' association). The following is a list of cities that are represented by their police officers association. Some represent all positions, some represent selected positions. A. ORANGE PD - The Police Officers' Association represents all positions. B. RIAlTO PD - The POA represents all positions. C. COLTON PD - The POA represents all positions. D. SANTA BARBARA PD - The POA represents all positions. E. FONTANA PD - The POA represents all positions. F. HUNTINGTON 8EACH PD - The POA represents selected positions. G. SUNNYVALE DEPT. OF SAFETY posi t ions. The POA represents selected H. FUllERTON PD The POA represents selected positions. I. SANTA ANA PD - The POA represents selected positions. J. TORRANCE PD Has a separate Safety Support Unit that represents selected positions. In general, the selected positions that are represented by these Police Officers' Associations include Property Clerks, Dispatchers, Service Officers (Police Assistants), Identification Technicians, Complaint Desk Personnel, and Community Service Officers. January 15, 1986 Page 3 (3) Why the Non-sworn felt they were not adequately represented by AF SCtlE ? The Roard at AFSO'E, in 1980, was given two (2) items by the non-sworn employees for consideration to be submitted for the MOU. AFSCME struck the two items submitted by non-sworn employees without forwarding them to the bargaining table. The two items struck were standby call back time, and payment of unused sick leave. For the year 1981-'82, there was no contract settlement. For the year 1983-' 84, the same two items were resubmitted to AFscrlE for inclusion in the bargaining process and AFscr'E did not forward the two to the bargaining table again. In the current contract that was just negotiated, fourteen (14) items for 1I0U changes were submitted by non-sworn employees of the Police Department to the AFSCME Negotiation Team. Of these fourteen (14) items submitted, thirteen (13) were struck out by AFSC'lE and not placed on the bargaining table. The items in questions were work periods, shift exchange, longevity, overtime, call back, standby, vacations, payment of unused sick leave, lnJury leave, personal tool replacement allowance, uniforms and raingear, shift differential, wage scale and health insurance. All of these were Police Oepartment related and routinely thrown out by AFSCME. The items submitted to AFS01E were submitted in language dealing with the employees of the pol ice department and AFSCIIE reason given to the San Bernardino Police non-sworn employees for discarding these items was "they were not for the 900d of the entire unit." In the general unit there are 550 (plus or minus ten) positions according to the City of San Bernardino's own Personnel Department. Also according to the Personnel Department, of this there is about a 5't deviation of the actually employeed number. We were told that at no time does the unemployment or unfi lled vacancies of the City go over 5't which would be 28 vacancies. The San Bernardino Poli~e Department has 128 authorized positions for non-sworn employees. Of that 109 are actually employed with 19 vacancies at this time. This is a 15't discrepancy as opposed to 5't City wi de or rough ly 2/3rds of the vacanc i es in the ent ire City occur in the Pol ice Department. The reason this occurs is due to the shift work and the screening that is done to applicants at the Police Department as opposed to applicants at other jobs throughout the City. January 15, 1986 Page 4 In terms of numbers, using AFSCME's own figures, of the 550 positions that the Personnel Department says are in the General Unit, AFSC/1E states that 200 are members of their organization. This is approximately 36~. Of the 109 non-sworn employees of the Police Department, there are only eight (8) members of AFscrlE, which is 1.45~. (4) Who will actually negotiate for this Unit was another question that was raised? In the discussion that occurred in the meeting of 1-6-86, the City's Personnel Director, Mary Jane PerliCk, advised that the Council was merely deciding if the members were an appropriate unit and if so, then they could vote on any organization for representation; and she mentioned Teamsters, and other units. This was a dis-service by Mrs. Perlick as she was not giving you the true intent of this unit. Mrs. Perlick, in the application for the Modification of the Unit, was given cards that were signed by non-sworn employees of the Police Department which indicated that they wanted the San Bernardino Police Officers' Association as their representative. At the time the cards were collected, there were 102 employees at the Police Department that were eligible to sign the cards. 101 cards were signed by these employees stating that they wanted the San Bernardino Police Officers' Association to be their representative. While it may be true that a second election would have to occur, it is also true that the non-sworn employees of the Police Department want the San ~ernardino Police Officers' Association to be their representative and that is how they would vote. As far as who wi 11 negotiate for the non-sworn employees, the negotiations would be handled by a unit formed of the non-sworn employees; they would pick their own bargaining team, which would consist of non-sworn employees of the Pol ice Department and the San 8ernardino Police Officers' Association attorney. This unit WOULD NOT 8E 8ARGAINED FOR BY THE SWORN POLICE OFFICERS. Further, this unit is not trying to be included in Charter Section 186. They were merely tryi ng to exerc i se thei r ri ghts as Ci ty employees and be represented by persons who they feel will adequately represent them with their needs in mind. January 15, 1986 Page 5 We hope that by answering these few questions it will assist you in making a decision that will benefit both the City and the employees seeking this modification. By showing that you care in their interests and their working conditions, you will have a happier group of employees that can only be a positive step for the City and the Citizens of San Bernardino. Thank you for your time and your consideration. SAN BERNARDINO POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS TW/pg