HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-Personnel
- --
CIR OF SAN BERNARD~ - REQU.QT FOR COUNCIL AC~ON
Dept:
Personnel
REc'D.-ADMIM. O~jact:
\985 DEe 19 PM 3: 55
Impasse Resolution for Unit Modification
Denial - Public Hearing Set for 2:00 P.M.
on 1/6/86
From:
M.J. Perlick
Date: 12/18/85
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
1. Previously recognized the General Unit as the most appropriate unit for all
General employees.
2. Directed the Director of Personnel to notify AFSCME and the modification
petitioner regarding the submission of such data.
3. Set a Public Hearing date of 1/6/86 to hear the matter regarding unit modifi-
cation.
Recommended motion:
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 as requested.
---1~t/
Contact person:
M.J. Perl ick
Phone: 5161
Supporting data attached: Yes
Ward:
n/a
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
n/a
Sou rce:
Finance:
Council Notes:
YI
CITY .Ot: SAN BERNAe~No- - R!QUESr'FOiFl COUNCIL ACTDOIN
--L )
STAFF REPORT
The firm of Silver, Kreisler, Goldwasser & Schaeffer submit-
ted a petition for General Unit modification in a timely
manner. A hearing was subsequently held on 10/30/85 and a
decision made on 11/20/85 (copy attached) ~'to 'allow the
unit modification. Charles Goldwasser requested an impasse
meeting via a letter received on 11/21/85 on the subject/de-
cision. This meeting was held on 12/2/85 with City Attorney
Sabourin also in attendance.
The impasse process was reviewed by both parties and it was
agreed that the Mediation (alternative A of Resolution 10584
- Section 13) should not be used, as there is nothing to
truly negotiate. Charles Goldwasser desired a determination
by the Mayor and Common Council, after a hearing (alternative
B of Resolution 10584 - Section 13) but was aware of the
final alternative (C) "any other dispute resolving procedures
to which the parties mutually agree or which the Mayor and
Common Council may order". This matter was thus submitted to
Council.
Council directed its designated representative to provide
them data on this issue as currently available, and to notify
AFSCME and the modification petitioner that any additional
written data they would like Council to consider should be
submitted to the Director of Personnel prior to 12/29/85.
Council then set a public hearing on the matter.
Attached is:
A.
The formal Petition for Modification of
Unit. It contains, among other items,
classifications deemed appropriate by
tioner to comprise an appropriate unit.
the General
the list of
the pet i-
B. A brief submitted to AFSCME's legal representative
against unit modification.
C. A brief submitted by Charles Goldwasser fQL unit
modification.
D. A copy of the City's designated representative's
Decision on the matter, to deny the unit modifica-
tion request.
E. Hearing and Data submission notice.
In recognizing an appropriate unit, a sufficient "community
of interest" must exist among the employees of such a unit,
and the following factors must be considered:
(continued)
75-0264
8)
-
c
,~
--..
,
'..../
2
::>
Impasse Resolution
-- 12/18/85
\..--
1. Which unit will assure employees the fullest freedom in
the exercise of rights set forth under the City's
employer/employee relations resolutions.
2. The history of the unit in representing employees.
3. The effect of the unit on the efficient operation of the
City and sound employee - employee relations.
4. The extent to which the employees have common responsi-
bilit ies.
5. The effect on the existing classification structure of
dividing a single class between units.
Charles Goldwasser argued (in his presentation and via his
brief of 11/1/85 - attachment "C") that the needs of Police
support personnel are so different from the needs of other
General Unit employees that a separate unit should exist, and
that a connection with law enforcement in and of itself is a
factor sufficient for distinguishing these employees from
others. He also indicated that employees in the proposed
unit have a positive personal identification with their job -
and make a total commitment to their jobs, while other City
employees need only "show up" and put in their time. He also
called out the "specialized training" and "specialized
equipment" as factors which affect the new, proposed unit-
factors "not present" in the General Unit. Confidentiality
was another unique factor and he also indicated that the
needs of the proposed unit have never been addressed at the
bargaining table.
As the designated City Representative, I find that the needs
of Police support personnel may be somewhat different, but
are not so different that a separate unit should exist. A
connection with law enforcement does not significantly
distinguish some employees from others. If this were the
case, General Employees in code enforcement would also be
"significantly distinguished". I find that many employees in
the City have a positive, personal identification with their
jobs, have "specialized training" and use "specialized
equipment". The employees in the proposed unit are not alone
in their level of stress or the high confidentiality of their
work. I also find that the needs of the proposed group have
been successfully addressed at the bargaining table. Via the
General Unit MOU in effect for 1983-85, "all permanent
personnel in the bargain ing unit as designated by the Chief"
in the Police Department gained "$200.00 per person initially
for the original issue" for uniforms, and a $75.00 per year,
(continued)
-
c
Impasse Resolution
-- 12/18/85
o
~
~
3
~
~er person maintenance only program subsequent to original
lssue. This language remains in the 1985-87 MOU (along with
uniform language for other City employees). In both the 1983-
85 and 1985-87 MOU's, the Article on shift differential, is
applicable ~ to employees assigned to the Communications
Division (i.e. Dispatchers) and Police Records, with special
shift differential rates applying to Clerks. In addition,
the most recent MOU afforded I.D. Technicians a 4 range
increase on top of the 8% granted 9-30-85.
In terms of the effect of the petitioned unit modification on
the existing class structure, I find that only 8 of the 20
stated classes (40%) are strictly Police Department classes.
They are:
1. Assistant Property and Supply Clerk
2. Complaint Desk Coordinator
3. Identification Technician
4. Police Assistant
5. Property and Supply Clerk
6. Subpoena Clerk
7. Conoounity Service Officer
8. Crime Analyst
Other classes were as follows:
TITLE
COMMENT
9. Automotive Serviceman
Positions are assigned to
Police and Fire but
employees are in the
Garage Diy~sion
10. Community Relations
Officer
Also in Fire Department
11. Dispatcher I and (12)
Dispatcher II
Also in Fire Department
Note: In the petition it
was unclear as to whether
or not all Dispatchers
were inc1u~ or just Police
Dispatchers.
(continued)
c
Impasse Resolution
12/18/85
o
o
4
~
13.
Intermediate Clerk (14)
Intermediate Typist
Clerk (15), Intermediate
Steno Clerk (16), Senior
Typist Clerk, and (17)
Secretary
Senior Switchboard
Operator (19), prin.
Steno Clerk and
(20) Principal Clerk
Used throughout the City
18.
General City classifica-
tion. (However, currently
in use only in Police De-
partment at this time)
To allow the unit modification would technically create 12
new classes, and the end result (after the negotiation of 1
or more MOU's) would be that an Intermediate Clerk Typist
(for example) in the Police Department would have a different
pay range and benefits than an Intermediate Clerk Typist in
the Fire Department - or any other department. This is not
appropriate.
Such a unit modification would not have a positive effect on
the efficient operation of the City as a whole, nor would it
be sound employee - employer relations to permit such a
modification. Such a unit split would have a substantive
effect on the classification structure of the City, and the
claim that Police general unit employees are substantially
different from other City employees (enough to cause a
modification) was not proved.
Thus, for
confirmed
employees
the
as
and
reasons stated above, the
the most appropriate unit
the unit modification request
General Unit was
for all General
was denied.
This report/packet was compiled for Council on 12/20/85.
Additional data received from AFSCME and the modification
petitioner by 12/30/85 will be forwarded to Council on 1/2/86
or 1/3/86.
The hearing, set.for 1/6/86 at 2:00 P.M., requires no parti-
cular format. The following format could be used, however,
and it is based on the impasse hearing format of 11/18/85.
I Data regarding timely submission, list of classes
proposed for modified unit, and denial decision
read by the City's Designated Representative.
II Petitioner - Arguments in favor of modification.
III AFSCME - Arguments against modification.
IV Close Hearing - Take the matter under advisement
(continued)
c
Impasse Resolution
-- 12/18/85
o
5
~
~
It is recommended that the number and length of presentations
by employees be limited, as were the presentations on
11/18/85. I suggest that AFSCME and the Petitioner each be
allowed a total of 4 presenters, including any"legal repre-
sentatives. Each group could thus have 3 persons speak, in
addition to the employee group representative, and Council
would hear a total of 9 persons, including the City's de-
signated representative.
MJ:jr
-I
~' I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
-
r . ,-
CHARLES A. GOLDWA~ER, ESQ. ~
SILVErt, KREISLER, GOLDWASSER & SHAEFFER
1428 Second Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica CA 90401
(213) 393-1486
:)
~
BEFORE THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR OF
THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
In the Matter of the )
SAN BERNARDINO POLICE OFFICER'S)
ASSOCIATION (Safety Services )
Support Unit) )
)
)
)
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF UNIT
[Res. No. 10584, ~9(A), ~lO(A);
Regulations Implementing
Employer-Employee Relations]
(Petition for Recognition
filed Concurrently)
The San Bernardino Police Officer's Association
(hereinafter referred to as "Association") hereby petitions
the City of San Bernardino seeking modification of the presently
existing General Employees Unit to provide for a Safety Service
Support Unit to be represented for purposes of meeting and
conferring in~good faith by the Association.
In support of said Petition and in accordance with
Res. No. 10584, Section 9(A), Section 10(A), and Rule l(C),
Rules and Regulations Implementing Employer-Employee Relations,
Association submits the following:
III
III
III
-1-
'f
il
II
C il
1 !,
)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
O -\
o .....,I
(1) Name: San Bernardino Police Officer's
Association
San Bernardino Police Department
466 West 4th Street
San Bernardino CA 92401
P.o. Box 202
San Bernardino CA 92402
(714) 383-5011
(2) Names and Titles of Officers:
President - Terry Wood
Vice President - Steve Filson
Executive Secretary - Pat Gantes
Treasurer - Bob Curtis
(3) Names of Authorized Representatives:
Same as above.
Legal Counsel - as designated.
(4) Statement of Purpose:
The San Bernardino Police Officer's Association
has ,as one of its primary purposes the representation of
employees in their employment relations with the City.
(5) Affiliations:
The San Bernardino Police Officer's Association
is affiliated with the Peace Officers' Research Association
of California, 1911 uF" Street, Sacramento, California, 95814.
(6) Certified Copies:
.-Attached hereto are certified copies of the
Articles and Bylaws of the San Bernardino Police Officer's
Association.
(7) Designated Persons for Notice:
The following individuals are designated to
receive notices for the San Bernardino Police Officer's
Association:
Terry Wood , President, P.O. Box 202, San
-2-
-!!
j;
C ,I
I'
11:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-
o
:)
o
Bernardino, California, 92401.
Pat Gantes, Executive Secretary, P.O. Box 202, San
Bernardino, California, 92401.
(8) Disclaimer:
The San Bernardino Police Officer's Association
hereby recognizes that the provisions of Section 923 of the
,~
California Labor Code are not applicable to City employees.
(9) Membership Restrictions:
The San Bernardino Police Officer's Association
has no restrictions on membership based on race, color, creed,
sex or national origin.
(10) Job Classifications or Titles:
. ~The.. fOllOWi~police Department and Central
Co,le/l'l/;'.! LJISPA-!C( u'.
'GemfflU~ie~~.i3ion emplo ees are claimed to comprise an
appropriate unit:
Assistant Property and Supply Clerk
Automotive Serviceman
Commynications El~ctroni
rnmmnni,.....fl....innc: FJ1.:ar-n'1ic;an
@))b
, .
. .-/
Community Relations Officer
Complaint Desk Coordinator
Dispatcher ::c. ) IL ~i)~
Identification Technician
Intermediate Clerk
Intermediate Typist Clerk
Intermediate Stenographer Clerk
Principal Stenographer Clerk
Senior Typist Clerk
-3-
c ),
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Secr<<::fy
Police Assistant
~
~
Principal Clerk
Property and Supply Clerk
Senior Switchboard Operator
Subpoena Clerk
Community Service Officer
-
Crime Analyst
To include all permanent, non-safety employees;
(Approximately 100 employees)
(11) Proof of Support:
Attached hereto is written proof dated within six months
of this Petition to establish that the employees in the unit claim to be
appropriate and have designated the employee organization, the San Bernardino
Police Officer's Association, to represent them in their employment relations
with the City.
'(12) Request for Recognition:
18 The San Bernardino Police Officer's Association hereby
19 requests that the Mayor and Common Council recognize the San Bernardino
20 Police Officer's Association as the exclusive representative of the employees
21
in the unit claimed to be appropriate for the purpose of meeting and
:. ,
.
.
.
22 conferring in good faith on all matters within the scope of representation.
23 Facts in support of proposed modified unit:
24 The proposed unit, represented by Association will assure
25 employees the fullest freedom in the exercise of the rights set forth in
26 Resolution No. 10584;
27 The proposed unit, represented by Association will assure
28 the efficient operation of the City and sound employer-employee relations;
-4-
c
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1'4
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
27
28
The Oloyees in the p'.:)'Jsed unit hove common respons.:::J1itie
in connection with the provision of support services to law enforcement;
Dividing the existing unit into two units will have little
or no effect on the existing classification structure.
I certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best
of my knO;l1edge.
Dated: ;i-I-i'..5-
/;/;;'c/ // // h1,d
TER~ PRESIDE~T g
~~ ~~~.
PAT GANTES~ EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Dated: I'D- (-'8S
.
.
.
-5-
/' -
R~H. ADELL & CROST
o
o
0,
J
A Pr'tOFESSIO,\IAL LPN CO;~::>O::::':'T!ON
JULIUS REICH
HIRSCH ADELL
PAUL CROST
GLENN ROTHNER
ALEXANDER B, CVITAN
501 SHATIO PLACE. SUITE 100
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90020
(213) 386,3860
November 1, 1985
ANTHONY R, SEGALL
JOHN RUBIN
MARGARET L, COHEN'
KAREN 0, KRAEMER
~ItOf'~;I"'JfII$lya
N'oIII''l'Ol'Io(a.vt!oONl.l'
Of'COU~
HARVEY REICHARD
OAN TRAMMELL
M.J. perlick, Director of Personnel
City of San Bernardino
Personnel Department
Ci ty Hall
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: San Bernardino Police Officer's
Association Petition for
Modification of Unit
Dear Ms. Per1ick:
This letter shall serve as a brief summary of the posi-
tion of AFSCME with respect to the Petition for Modification of
Uni t.
During the course of the hearing before you, we
articulated the facts and legal principles which we believe warrant
the dismissal of the petition. Foremost among these is that the
proposed modification simply does not meet the unit criteria set
forth at Section 10(A) of the Employer-Employee Relations
Resolution. AFSCME has a history of representing these employees,
a separate unit for these employees would hinder the efficient
operation of the City and sound employer-employee relations, the
employees have functions and responsibilities common to employees
in other departments represented in the General Unit, and the
modification woul~ result in the splitting of existing classifica-
tions among two or more units.
Although the San Bernardino Police Officer's Association
("SBPOA") sought to portray the affected employees as unique, the
similarity of their working interests and conditions with General
Unit employees in other departments outweighs their uniqueness.
Were the modification to be granted, there would be no reason to
prevent employees in each City department to carve out their own
unit, for the primary arg~ment advanced by the SBPOA in this case
is that the affected employees work in the Police Department and
are, therefore, unique in relation to employees in other depart-
ments.
~ea
'C
1, k' Of'
M.J. Per iC , Director 0
November 1, 1985
Page 2
o
Personnel
:)
Cill Finally, as we discussed at the hearing~ to permit the
SBPOA to represent these employees, albeit in a separate unit,
would inevitably interfere with the ability of these employees to
fully exercise their freedom under the Myers-Milias-Brown Act. The
POA conceded at the hearing that the affected employees are
supervised by lieutenants, sargeants, and patrolmen who make up the
SBPOA. This presents a conflict of interest which should disqualify,
that organization from representing these employees. The Bylaws of .
the SBPOA, at Article V, S 7, provide that the Board of Directors
shall make policy for the association and negotiate contracts,
including collective bargaining agreements. Thus, according to the
Bylaws, an organization which is dominated by the supervisors of
the affected employees would be in a position to dictate to those
employees the collective bargaining goals and strategy to pursue.
This presents problems for the affected employees and for the City,
which would face the prospect of having its supervisory personnel
playing both sides of the negotiating table. Similar considera-
tions have led the National Labor Relations Board to disqualify any
organization in which supervisors actively participate and hold
office from representing rank-and-file employees. See North Shore
'Univ. Hosp., 274 N.L.R.B. 188, 118 L.R.R.M. 1585 (1985) (a copy of
this decision is enclosed with this letter).
Very truly yours,
REICH, ADELL & CROST
By
~~
Glenn Rothner
GR:dld
Enc 1.
~
cc: John Wyrough
.C
STEPHEN H. SILVE~
RICHARD M. KREISLER
CHARLESA. GOLDWASSER
GEORGE W. SHAEFFER, JR.
J.lEONARO STERN
STEVEN E. KA YE
CYNTHIA R. SAFFIR
WILUAM J. HADDEN
DAVtDJ. OUCHROW
SUSAN SILVER
NANCY P. CULVER
SYLVIA E. KELLISON
OF COUNSEL
NORMAN B. SILVER
PERSONAL INJURY
OF COUNSEL
SHALE F. KREPACK
SILVER, KREIQR. GOLDWASS:) & SHAEFFER
1. PROFESSIONAL LAWCOAPORATION
1<28 SECOND STREET, SUITE 200
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401
TELEPHONE (213) 393-1486
TELEPHONE (213) 870-0900
:)
COMMERCEBANK BUllOING
1201 DOVE STREET, SUITE 600
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
TELEPHONE(114)955--1971
November 1, 1985
>
UJ"~p/
!f1'P ' IA'
Z,l.J. perlick
Director of Personnel
City of San 'Bernardino
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino CA 92418-0138
Re:
Petition for Unit Modification/
San Bernardino Police' Officers Association
(Safety Services Support Unit)
Dear Ms. Perlick:
This letter constitutes the Brief and Final
Argument of the San Bernardino Police Officers Association
("Association") on behalf of its request to modify the
current General Employees Bargaining Unit to provide for
a separate Safety Services Support Bargaining Unit made up
of the job classifications and titles contained in the
Modification Petition.
The Police Officers Association has filed the
Petition on behalf of, and at the request of, the affected
employees. The only issue before the Designated City
Representative at this point is a determination of the
appropriate unit or. units as between the existing unit
and the proposed modified unit (Rule l(C), Rules and
Regulations Implementing Employer-Employee Relations, City
of San Bernardino). .
The criteria for that determination are enumerated
in the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution. Of overriding
concern is the existence of a community of interest among
the employees in a proposed unit. Factors to be considered
in making the determinatiou include similarity of general
kinds of work; qualifications and general working conditions;
-
CJIXER. KREISLER, GOLD\L\On & SHAEF~
November 1, 1985
Page 2
:.)
history of representation; assurance of the fulle?t freedom
in exercising the rights under the Employer-Employee
Relations Resolution; and, the effect on City operations
and employer-employee relations including stability of the
classification structure.
The Association contends that the evidence
introduced at the Petition for Modification hearing supports
a finding that the proposed modified unit is the most
appropriate. The decision of the Designated City
Representative must, as in all cases in which a hearing is
required by law, be supported by the findings of the
hearing officer which, in turn, must be supported by the
evidence. '(Code of Civil Procedure Sl094.5.) In this case,
although the Association appeared with nine witnesses ready
to testify as to the issues, it was suggested by the
Designated City Representative that only one presentation
be made. The Association agreed. Under the circumstances,
the evidence on the factual issues stands before the
,Representative uncontradicted. This leaves only the legal
,issues outlined above for determination.
This is not an effort to become affiliated with
the Police Bargaining Unit. The needs of sworn and non-sworn
personnel, while similar, are not the same. But, by the
same token, the needs of safety support personnel are so
different from those of general employees that continued
inclusion in that unit would be inappropriate. This is an
effort to separate these employees from the general
employees in order to allow both the City and the employees
to benefit from the Employer-Employee Relations Resolution.
The following ar~t should be considered in the dual
context of indicating the similarity of interests of the
classifications in the proposed unit as well as the
dissimilarity of tqose shared interests with the interests
of the general unit classifications. It is clear ~hat
connection with law enforcement is a factor sufficlent to
d1 stJ.nquishtllese- ernpI~e's;';"t'rolllOt11e-rs~~'~'--~--" i:J:i..r-.--~_--
L1. 1" IllI - .-~ -''ll;;;td..1~ ~~
Interestingly, in response to a question of the
applicability of the law allowing for separate peace officer
bargaining units, the Association vigorously protested its
distinction from the sworn peace officer bargaining unit.
That remains our position, but many of the same factors that
justify the existence of bargaining units composed solely
of sworn peace officers apply to a requested unit composed
solely of law enforcement support personnel.
OLYER. KREISLER, GOLD\L'OR & SHAEFF1()
November 1, 1985
Page 3
:)
The most obvious consequence of employment in the
Police Department is the heightened exposure to risk of
physical injury. Individuals in the proposed unit have
been shot at, assaulted, required to handle dangerous
individuals, and required to handle dangerous substances.
For the most part, members ofthe_,.!?}3?p'(JS~._l.!.~it,~E.Eear to
the ublic to be some t e of o~~ce off~cer.~!i:ls occurs
e~t er by v~rtue 0 t e~r appearance a a crime scene, their
uniform or plainly identified vehicle, or theirrnb~~~enc~ i~_
the Police Department_building. Many of the me ers o~ t~e
proposed unit do jobs that are virtually indistinguishable
from some of the duties performed by sworn officers. In
fact, the identification technicians do jobs once performed
by sworn officers, as do the Police Assistants. Even the
Complaint Desk Coordinator does a job that was once performed
by a sworn officer, and has to deal with violent people who come
into the Police Department building.
The risk of exposure to danger is significantly
higher for the employees in the proposed unit than for
~hose in the General Employees Unit. Unlike the General
Unit in which there is some exposure to risk in certain
classifications based on unique factors, the exposure here
is ~enerated by one factor - relationship to law enforcement.
That exposure is common to all of the classifications in the
proposed modified unit. Therefore, while an argument that
the wearing of a uniform does not per se set forth the
community of interest necessary to establish a separate
bargaining unit, the wearing of a uniform that contains the
word "Police", as those in the proposed unit do, indicates
the close relationship to law enforcement. That relationship
is the source of the increased risk of injury.
Closely linked with this particular factor is the
seriousness of the.jobs performed. This proposed unit,
denominated Safety Services Support, is involved in just
that: the support of the sworn safety officer. That support,
at all levels from secretarial to physical presence in the
street, has life and death consequences daily, 24-hours a
day, seven days a week. This is best illustrated by the
service provided by the dispatchers who must keep track of
the officers and provide necessary back-ups, coordinate
high-speed chases, and assign calls based on risk and injury
priority.
Everyone in the unit has contact with sworn officers.
As a result of their physical presence in the building, and the
regular contact with sworn officers, all unit members may be
called on to assist the handling of a dangerous and violent
SI'LYEH. I\:HEISLEH. GOLDWASSEI~ &.
C ' c::
November 1, 1985
Page 4
SHAEFn:;.T';:
.)
--
...1
individual, to help the sworn personnel. In a less dramatic
fashion, the development and processing of Depar~ment
paperwork provides a support to the sworn officers that can
mean the difference between serving a warrant and making an
arrest in a careful, orderly, safe and efficient manner, as
opposed to a more dangerous approach sometimes necessitated
by lack of documentary back-up (warrants and reports).
The connection with this most serious of City
services produces in the members of the proposed unit both a
high level of stress and a strong positive personal
identification with their job and the Police Department in
general. While man in Cit em 10 ment ma be able to show
u and ut 1n the1r ours s s ~
Department mustl because 0 the n~ture of..tJ:1_e _wp.,rls_c..J!lJ;lke a.~
total commi tmell.t eadi mome,nt_that ti1ex area.n .the jOE" and
for much of their time~~~xfr~~tU~~j~b.
Employees in the proposed unit are bound, too,
by their s ecialized trainin use of s ecialized~~~iRment,
'and involvement 1n a spec1a 1ze proce ure;"""fKat-is 'e"
.criminal justice system. hese factors are resent in all
iob cla5sificfit~Qn~jn__tlh~~9R~~PJ-...... ~~IL.\C1P.E.r.~.1~
General Emplo~~~s U~t.
Aside from learning the various codes (Penal,
Vehicle, Business and Professions, Welfare and Institutions,
Health and Safety, Municipal) all employees in the unit must
be familiar with the elements of the crimes, the relative
seriousness of the offenses, and the proper procedures
employed as a consequence of acts appearing to be violations,
i.e., whether the matter is handled as criminal or civil, by
patrol or investigation, by juvenile or other County agencies,
etc. In addition, to perform most jobs, members of the unit
must have been trained in powers of arrest and search and
seizure, as well as specialized training in analysis, first
aid, driving and r~cords keeping. Members of the proposed
unit are certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards
and Training (POST) in the specialized, non-sworn functions.
Another consequence of dealing with the criminal
justice system is the high degree of confidentiality required.
Both for the purposes of ma1nta1n1ng the 1ntegr1ty of
investigations and the viability of prosecutions, the work of
all employees in the proposed unit must be held in strict
confidence; the safety of the officers and citizens and the
,CINEH. KHEISr.T:n, GOLDWA~H & SHAEFFEO
~
November 1, 1985
Page 5
security of the Department permit no breach of th~s
confidentiality. In no other 'ob classifications in the
Cit does the oss1b1l1t 0 a reac 0 con 1 ~1a ~~__
preseQt ?onsecruences as ras 1C as p YS1ca ~i13ury an
harm, fa1lure to protlect the' CItizenry, and criminal
prosecution of the employee breaching the duty of
confidentiality. In no other job classifications in the
City are such thorough background examinations performed
or polygraph examinations required as regularly as in the
Police Department.
Employees in this proposed unit are subject to
24-hour call in case of emergency; they are expected to do
whatever it 'takes and all it takes in unusual situations.
They work in a paramilitary environment with a strict chain
of command and disciplinary structure. It cannot be
disputed, based on the evidence presented at the hearing,
that the employees in the proposed unit are unique and
distinct from the rest of the General Employees and share
amongst themselves a common bond as evidenced by their
types of work, education and training, and general working
conditions.
Unfortunately, their inclusion in the General
Employees Unit has not afforded them the fullest freedom
in the exercise of their rights under the Employer-
Employee Relations Resolution. Comprising approximately
one-fifth of the general unit, the needs particular to the
law enforcement nature of their work have never been
addressed at tne barga1n1ngta5Te. l<ather , "'base a on the
sound pr1nclple-Qf'-obta1n1ng t~ greatest good for the
largest number, the General Employees Unit has addressed
those issues common to all employees. If it were not for
the fact that the service provided by these employees is
so extremely important, as a result of their close
identification with. the sworn officers, their special needs
may not appear to be a priority. But, in this City. which
has elevated the sworn employee as evidenced by Charter
Section 186, in matters'-6f col1ect~veDargarrrrng, to sucn
he1ghts tnose su~portin~=~K~~worn=orrr~~'~ate=~~~~~lng
of partrcu!,,~!=~_~_~~,,~~_~~"!.~~~~~!:;_~~.,.'=~Mt"~~=~"4~_.
The uniform policy of the General Unit does not
recognize the special equ1pment needs of safety support
personnel. The stand-by policy does not reflect the court
appearance needs of safety support personnel. The shift
schedule and rotational policies are not negotiated; they
,CIL\'ER. KREISI.EH. GOLDWAO~H & SHAEFV
November 1, 1985
Page 6
:')
don't reflect the needs of the safety support personnel.
Specialized pay for hazardous as13.i9nments is not addressed.
In short, part1cular problems that ar1se because of the law
enforcement nature of the job are subordinated to very
general needs of the other 400 employees in the General Unit.
This does not allow the fullest freedom in the exercise of
rights under the Resolution.
The history of the unit indicates that the unit
has existed in the same form for almost 15 years. In those
15 years, in a number of areas, civilians have replaced
sworn peace officers in the performance of certain jobs.
The trend is to continue that replacement. The nature of
the jobs performed by those in the proposed unit have evolved
to become more clearly linked amongst themselves and with
law enforcement and more distinct from the rest of the
General Unit.
.. . The history also .~.l'1ows trre",e;.J.J',~~!;~~ for unit
mod1f1cat1pn inth~~~t:!lve'vea~sJ: ---
There is no evidence upon which to determine the
effect of the proposed modification on the efficient
operation of the City, sound employer-employee relations,
and the existing classification structure. It is obvi<?~i.
that emp~oyer-employee relations ~!l.?~~reatl~e~~~nced
by allow1ng these employees an opportun1ty-,;o=r;e neara~ fne
practical effect of this unit modification. And, it is
n~t wilq ~R~c~f~t~n~to a~sume that the>-e!!t~~~~y of
C1 tv oOIi.. a t19.,!l.~'e.ill_X!.c;>_t....~Q.,.itux..."w?-LIz~ ",,~~:f ~~e~,~- 't,Ii e
formation of th1s unit. It may be sa1d that City operations
will be facilitated if the special needs of this group are
regularly addressed in the meet and confer process.
An argument was made that units are to be drawn
across department rines; that separate departmental units
are not common and ~ot good. This is not the case. In
law enforcement in particular bargaining units may be formed
along department lines and if desired bX the emplovees, must
~ Certainly, as argued above, the simriarity of jOb duties
and commonality of purpose with law enforcement would justify
a unit of non-sworn employees drawn according to the
boundaries of the Police Department.
Finally, some comment was made about the impropriety
of supervisors belonging to the recognized employee
organization for any such modified unit. The City cannot
determine who mayor may not belong to the Association. The
'C
o
o
:)
SILVER, KREISLEH, GOLDWASSEH & SUAEFFEH
November 1, 1985
Page 7
facts are that the Police Officers Association Board of
Directors contains a number of non-sworn people who are
seeking this unit modification. An officer of the
Association is one of the employees requesting this
modification. The police unit contains supervisors and
non-supervisors, and other bargaining units throughout
the state contain supervisors and the people they
supervise, even if only sergeants and patrol officers.
The comments on this issue were misplaced and irrelevant.
No case exists interpreting the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
in the way suggested. The Rules of the City of San
Bernardino do not preclude the unit requested, nor, the
representation requested. Be advised that only upon a
determination that the proposed modified unit is
appropriate does th e issue of recognition arise. There-
fore it is our contention that arguments going to the
issue of representation are premature and irrelevant.
In conclusion, for the reasons set forth above
,and based on the evidence introduced at the hearing in
this matter, it is requested that the General Employees
Unit be modified along the lines contained in the
Petition for Unit Modification filed herein.
Very truly
~
CHARLES A.
CAGjcg
cc: Terry Wood, San Bernardino P.D.
Pat Gantes, Darryl Zoulko, San Bernardino P.O.
c 0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
, \'\,
I \ . ~ ..
J .
:{ -"".
.. '-I
,-
300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241ll-0138
..
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
M,J, PER LICK
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL
,
November 20, 1985
Mr. Charles A. Goldwasser
Silver, Kreisler, Goldwasser &
Shaeffer
1428 Second Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA--9-0401
Ms. Ann Imparato
Staff Representative, AFSCME
Calif. Pist. Cncl. 36 AFL-CIO
1530 West Lincoln Avenue, ~109
Anaheim, CA 92801
re: Denial or-Request for Unit Modification
On October 30, 1985, a Unit Modification hearing was held, as
authorized by City Resolution 1115'85. Arguments \'Iere mac1e"by ,-
the representative of the SaD ~ernardino Police Officers
Association in favor of a, .'safety silpport type -unit and
arguments against same were made by an attorney from AFSCME.
'.
I recognize that there is a strong desire on the part of the
current non-safety employees of the Police Department to form
their own unit. This denial of unit modification should not
in any way be taken as a negative move on the part of the
City towards those employees.
In his statement, Mr. Goldwasser strongly argued that non
sworn employees in the Police Department should not be in
with the General Unit due to a number of factors~ I was not
persuaded, however, that granting the unit modification would
assure employees the fullest freedom in the exercise of their
rights as set forth under City Resolution 10584. Such a unit
modification would not have a positive effect on the effi-
cient operation of the City, and it most probably would have
a negative effect.
The unit modific~tion as requested is hereby denied. The
appropriate unit is confirmed as a unit containing all
General Unit employees.'
(continuecll
.
--. ---- .~..........-
. .." -...
c'
o
j .'I'~' \ \" . ,
1 \ .
\
Mr. Charles A. Goldwasser
November 20, 1985
Page 2
Sincerely, ...LJ
~y (~~,t.:.L
MARY JA~ PERLICK
Director of Personnel
MJ:jr
cc:
Mayor Evlyn Wilcox
.Jack Matzer, City Administrator
Police Department:
T. Wood
P.' Gantes----,--
G. Aponte
S. Dawson-"
N. Clark
J. Coar
S. Zoulko
R. Rees
J. Alexander
S. Moore
P. Schoultz
.~---::.
- ,.
.
,
,
-
,
,
.
c.
o
o
--..-
.
'-.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO 300 NORTH "0" STREET, SAN BERNAROINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B.()138
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
M,J, PER LICK
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL
December l8, 1985
Mr. Charles A. Goldwasser
Silver, Kreisler, Goldwasser &
Shaeffer '
1428 Second Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Ms. Ann Imparato
Staff Representative, AFSCME
Calif. Dist. Cncl. 36 AFL-CIO
1530 West Lincoln Avenue, #l09
Anaheim, CA 92801
re: Hearing on the Matter of Unit Modification/Submission of Other
Data
Per City Resolution 10584, a hearing has been set by the Council for
January 6, 1986 at 2:00 P.M. on the matter of unit modification.
Council will receive, in advance, a copy of the original petition for
unit modification, the summary submitted by AFSCME's legal representa-
tives dated 11/1/85, the summary ("Brief and Final Argument") submit-
ted by Charles Goldwasser and the modification denial decision dated
11/20/85.
If you have any other data you wish to have delivered to the Council
in advance of the hearing date, please have same in my office by 4:30
P.M. on December 30, 1985.
Although the hearing format will be determined by Council, I would ex-
pect that they will hear presentations of individual employees, act-
ing as spokespersons for the group. May I suggest that each group
(AFSCME and Charles Goldwasser) limit themselves to 3 or 4 employee
presentations each, in addition to the presentation by each group's
main representative. If you have concerns regarding this limit, please
contact me prior to 12/30/85.
Please call me if you have any questions regarding the process.
Sinc:r; ~
~ JA~ {~RLICK
Director of Personnel
MJ:jr
~. ...
r'",,\
, ..,/
The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Emplo-
yees supports the decision recently reached by your Personnel
Director, M. J. Perlick, after hearing extensive arguments on
the proposed modification.
The theory behind bargaining units and their composition
rests on achieving a well-balanced group of employees who have
similar needs and demands. The concept of job categories which
are compatible to an effectively formulated bargaining unit is
intended to benefit both labor and management. Broad and en-
compassing characteristics preclude the effect of smaller bar-
gaining units which concentrate on varying yet specific goals
and when they attain them, then demand benefits similar to the
collateral bargaining units, based on a notion of parity. For
management there is also the benefit that results in cost
efficiencies, by not having to negotiate too many separate
collective bargaining agreements and in standardizing a wage
and benefit package.
In this instance, the components within the structure of
the bargaining unit have not changed since originally formed.
Unit formation was and still is based on the notion of "job posi-
tions" or "job categories" as opposed to differences in speci-
fic individuals filling those jobs.
It is the commonality of
the jobs contained therein as opposed to the individuals con-
tained therein. Skills and duties of employees need not be
identical in order to establish a community of interest.
Rather, there must be a common enough aspect of employment
which makes it reasonable to negotiate jointly. Employees
with differing skills and functions are deemed to have the
(1 )
c: ~/
1 I requisite community of interest based on the following:
2
3
1. Job functions involved,
2. Rate of compensation for the job,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3. Whether compensation is paid on hourly or salary basis,
4. Whether there are prerequisites to holding the specific
job title, similar to others within the unit.
5. Similar fringe benefits to job categories within the
unit.
6. Similarity of duties to other job titles in the unit.
7. Similarity of fringe benefits, (pension, vacation,
11 sick leave).
12 Throughout the history of the existing bargaining unit,
13 there has been continuing participation by employees in all
14 job categories included in the General Unit, in all aspects of
15 representation and negotiations. There have been no exclusions
16 based on particular skills, departments or locations.
17 Decisions on the composition of bargaining units are not
18 taken lightly. Once established, as this General Unit has been,
19 we are confronted with the precedent of earlier decisions whe-
20 ther in this jurisdiction or others. The integrity of this
21 General Unit has been maintained in the past and has been
22 reaffirmed just recently. There have been no changes or evi-
23 dence presented that would warrant deviation from precedents
24 set.
25 Dated: January 6, 1986
Anaheim, California
26
27
28
Respectful~bmitted'
~ A_
~ M~ Imparato
Staff Representative
AFSCME Council 36
, ~ \
~, .
("
"
-
~
\..",,.--'
1
Ann M. Imparato
Staff Representative
2
American Federation of State, County &
3 Municipal Employees
1530 W. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 109
4 Anaheim, Ca. 92801
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Presented to:
]
Honorable Mayor Evlyn Wilcox ]
& ]
Councilmembers of the City of San Bernardino ]
]
Proposal:
RE: Modification of General Unit, AFSGME Local 122