Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Resolution 13051
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13051 MAKING FINDINGS, APPROVING CERTAIN WAGE AND BENEFIT INCREASES FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY IAFF, LOCAL 689, CALLING ELECTION AND SUBMITTING MEASURE TO VOTERS TO APPROVE SPECIAL TAX TO RAISE REVENUES TO PAY ADDITIONAL WAGE AND BENEFITS INCREASES TO SUCH EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: jvleyers- Milias -Brown Act I. The Meyers - Milias -Brown Act (Government Code section 3500 et seq.) was enacted (1) to promote communications between public employers and their employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment; and (2) to promote the improvement of personnel management and employer- employee relations by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public employees to join organizations and be represented by such organizations. (Gov.Code section 3500.) 2. The'Meyers- Milias- Bro *vn Act requires cities to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act defines "meet and confer in good faith" to include adequate time for resolution of impasses where specific procedures for impasse resolution are contained in local ordinances or regulations. ( Gov.Code section 3505.) The Act also permits cities to adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the administration of employer- employee relations, including procedures for the resolution of disputes involving wages, hours and other terms and conditions of erployment. (Gov.Code section 3507.) Council Resolution No. 7476 3. Pursuant to the Meyers - Milias -Brown Act, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 7476 on May 21, 1969. That resolution defines "impasse" (Section 3) and provides a procedure for resolution of impasses (Section 13). The impasse resolution procedures require an impasse meeting and, thereafter, submittal to impasse procedures mutually agreed upon. Failing resolution through any mutually - selected impasse procedure, the matter shall be referred to the Council which shall make a determination after a hearing on the merits of the dispute. Charter Provisions 4. In November, 1980, the people of the City of Alameda approved Measure C which added Article 27 to the Charter of the City of Alameda. (Exhibit A.) Article 27 included Section 27 -4 which required that all disputes pertaining to "wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment" which are unresolved when impasse is declared be submitted to a 3- member board of arbitrators. 5. At the same election in 1980, the people also approved Measure B which added Section 17 -17 to the Charter. Charter section 17 -17 has remained unchanged since 1980. It reads as follows: "No additional financial burdens may be imposed on the taxpayers of the City as a result of binding fact finding, arbitration or parity without approval of the voters as set forth in this section. Any other provision of this Charter notwithstanding, no wages, benefits or employee related expenses shall be paid by the City that have not been approved by a resolution of the City Council until additional revenues and appropriations therefor have been approved by a vote of the People pursuant to Proposition 13 (Cal.Const.Art.XIIIA,Sec.4) and Proposition 4 (Cal.Const.Art.XIIIB,Sec.4). The City Council shall not be required to call such an election more than once a year and may consolidate said elections with elections held for other purposes." The City Attorney's analysis of Measure B read as follows: "Measure B provides for voter approval of any employee related financial burdens placed on the City by persons who are not elected by the people. No vote is required for Council approved wages, benefits or expenses. Only the difference between what the Council has approved and what an arbitrator or other non- elected person has approved requires voter approval. In those cases the voters must approve both an additional revenue source and an increase in the appropriations limit, according to the procedures established by the State Constitution." 2 The argument in favor of Measure B stated that the Alameda citizens "want to control the cost of government." The argument against Measure B stated that "What this measure would do is require a special two - thirds vote of the people to ratify any arbitration award which did not adopt the City Council's position." (Exhibit B.) 6. In November, 1982 the people adopted Measure D which amended Article 27 of the Charter. Section 27 -5 was added to read as follows: "Impasse Resolution Procedures. All disputes or controversies pertaining to financial benefits only, which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations between the City and the fire department employee organization shall be submitted to an arbitration upon the declaration of an impasse by the City or by the recognized fire department employee organization. Section 27-3(A) was added to define "financial benefits" as follows: "Financial benefits" shall mean monthly base salaries; all supplementary cash entitlements paid directly to employees; and health insurance, retirement, vacation, holiday and sick leave benefits." Finally, Section 27 -8 was added to read as follows: "Sec. 27 -8. Enforcement. Enforcement of arbitration awards hereunder shall be consistent with Section 17 -17 of this Charter." 7. In November, 1992 a citizen - sponsored initiative (Measure D) was on the ballot; it would have repealed Section 17 -17 of the Charter and repealed and reenacted Article 27. Measure D did not pass. (Exhibit C.) 8. A Council - sponsored initiative was on the same 1992 ballot (Measure E). It would have amended Section 17 -17 of the Charter and repealed and reenacted Article 27. Measure E also failed to pass. (Exhibit D.) 3 MOU Between City and Union 9. The City of Alameda ( "City ") and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 689 ( "Union ") were parties to a memorandum of understanding ( "MOU ") which expired on December 31, 1994. (Exhibit E.) Negotiations and Impasse 10. The City and the Union began negotiations in November 1994 in an attempt to reach agreement on the terms of a new MOU for the period commencing January 1, 1995. The parties met and conferred on 14 occasions (between November 14, 1994 and September 14, 1995 until the Union declared impasse on September 26, 1995. The City's offer at the time impasse was declared (which was for 1995 only) is described on Exhibit F. 11. Pursuant to section 13 ( "Resolution of Impasses ") of Resolution No. 7476, an impasse meeting was held on October 19, 1995 and a mediation meeting was held on November 30, 1995. The City and the Union did not resolve the impasse at either the impasse meeting and/or through mediation. Thereafter, on January 3, 1996, the Union requested the City convene an interest arbitration pursuant to the Charter. Arbitration Proceeding 12. The arbitration commenced on October 23, 1996. The City was willing to submit 22 proposals which it considered related to "financial benefits," as that term is defined in Charter §27 -3, to arbitration but was not willing to submit all proposals to arbitration or to let the Arbitrator decide what was arbitrable. The October 23 hearing was terminated. 13. The Union filed suit to compel the City to arbitrate all proposals (Alameda Superior Court No 775488 -5, "International Association of Firefighters, Local 689 v. City of Alameda). The Superior Court issued its order partially granting and partially denying the petition to compel arbitration and its Statement of Decision (Exhibit G) on February 28, 1997, finding that 27 of 42 proposals were arbitrable. 14. The 27 proposals which the Superior Court found to be arbitrable are listed in its Statement of Decision. 4 15. The 15 proposals which the Superior Court found were not arbitrable are listed on Exhibit H. Some of these proposals are Union proposals and some are City proposals. 16. The arbitration then commenced on June 17, 1997, pursuant to the Superior Court's Order and Statement of Decision. 17. The City made an "off the record" offer to the Union on August 21, 1997 (the "August 1997 Offer "). (Exhibit I.) The Union did not consider the August 1997 Offer to be "off the record" and voted to reject the August 1997 Offer on September 8, 1997. 18. Following the close of arbitration proceedings on January 27, 1998, both the City and the Union submitted post- arbitration briefs. The arbitrator, Armon Barsamian, issued his Opinion and Award on July 15, 1998 (Exhibit J). 19. Pursuant to the Superior Court's Order, the arbitrator's Opinion anu Award addresses only the 27 proposals found to be arbitrable under Article 27 of the Charter. The Opinion and Award do not address the 15 proposals which were found to not be arbitrable. 20. The Council will consider resolution of the 15 non - arbitrable proposals (Exhibit H) pursuant to Resolution No. 7476 by separate action to be taken in the future. 21. In enforcing (that is, carrying out) the Arbitrator's Award, pursuant to Charter Section 27 -8, the Council has considered the arbitrator's Opinion and Award as required by Charter Section 17 -17. 22. The Council has concluded that the Arbitrator's Award includes increases in wages, benefits and employee related expenses that are in excess of those offered by the City either at impasse (Exhibit F) or in August 1997 (Exhibit I). The Council has also concluded that the Arbitrator's Award would require use of general fund reserves in excess of reserves contemplated for this use, would require decreases in expenditures beyond which can reasonably be made, or would require increased revenue sources which are not feasible. For these reasons, the Council has concluded that it must seek voter approval of a special tax to pay the Arbitrator's Award, over the wages, benefits and employee related expenses approved by the Council below. 23. The Council has also considered the City's offer at impasse (Exhibit F) and has concluded that it is not appropriate, at this time, to approve that offer because it addressed only calendar year 1995. 5 24. The Council has also considered the August 1997 Offer (Exhibit I) and has conduded that it is appropriate to approve that offer for the following reasons: (a) the August 1997 Offer addresses the same three years (1995 -1997) as the Arbitrator's Award; (b) the costs of the August 1997 Offer were anticipated in FY 1997 -98 and, because the August, 1997 offer was not implemented in 1997, monies to pay it were transferred into general fund reserves, which can now be used to implement the August 1997 Offer; and (c) the offer provides for increases in compensation which are substantially equal to compensation provided to police employees during the same time period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AS FOLLOWS: A. Pursuant to Charter Section 17 -17, the Council approves the following wages and benefits included in the August 1997 Offer which come within the definition of "financial benefits" under Charter Section 27-3(A) and which address benefits which were not rejected by the Arbitrator, to wit: 1. MOU Section 12.1: Rates of Pay Effective January 1, 1995', the monthly rates of pay shall be as follows: Monthly Captain: Step 4 $4,965 Step 5 $5,219 Lieutenant: Top Step $4,849 Apparatus Operator: Top Step $4,568 Firefighter: Step 1 $2,965 Step 2 $3,169 Step 3 $3,393 Step 4 $3,605 Step 5 $3,908 Step 6 $4,103 Step 7 $4,312 * In addition, EMT pay will be increased effective January 1, 1995 by $10 a month and Ambulance Differential will be increased by $3 per 24 -hour shift (see below.) 6 Effective January 1, 1996, the bi- weekly rates of pay shall be as follows monthly rates are shown for information only Monthly $i- Weekly Captain: Step 4 $5,113.33 $2,360 Step 5 $5,375.50 $2,481 Lieutenant: Top Step $4,994.17 $2,305 Apparatus Operator: Top Step $4,706 $2,172 Firefighter: Step 1 $3,052.83 $1,409 Step 2 $3,263.00 $1,506 Step 3 $3,494.83 $1,613 Step 4 $3,713.67 $1,714 Step 5 $4,025.67 $1,858 Step 6 $4,227.17 $1,951 Step 7 $4,441.67 $2,050 Effective January 1, 1997, the bi- weekly rates of pay shall be as follows. Monthly rates are shown for information only. Monthly Si- Weekly Captain: Step 4 $5,371.17 $2,479 Step 5 $5,646.33 $2,606 Lieutenant: Top Step $5,301.83 $2,447 Apparatus Operator: Top Step $4,959.50 $2,289 Firefighter: Step 1 $3,130.83 $1,445 Step 2 $3,345.33 $1,544 Step 3 $3,581.50 $1,653 Step 4 $3,804.67 $1,756 Step 5 $4,125.33 $1,904 Step 6 $4,331.17 $1,999 Step 7 $4,552.17 $2,101 The monthly rates of pay beginning January 1, 1996 include an Note 1: increase of 3 %. Note 2: The monthly rates of pay beginning January 1, 1 997 include a 2.5% increase and an increase in the differentials between ranks, as follows: Apparatus Operator top step is 8.95% above Firefighter top step (was 5.95 %); Lieutenant top step is 16.47% above Firefighter top step (was 12.47 %); and Captain 7 top step is 24.04% above Firefighter top step (was 21.04 %). Actual dollar amounts are rounded off to the stated percentages as closely as possible. Note 3: The differentials between the steps for Firefighters (Steps 1 to 7) and Captain (Steps 4 to 5) are based on the percentage differentials in effect on July 1, 1994.) 2. MOU Section 13.5: ,Employee Assistance Program The number of visits shall be increased from seven to ten visits annually, effective January 1, 1995. 3. MOU Section 25.1: Emergency Medical Technical 1 A Certificate Effective January 1, 1995, an employee who has a valid and current EMT 1 -A certificate will receive $108 per month (was $98). Effective October 1, 1997, all employees in the rank of Firefighter will receive an additional $100 per y month of EMT pay "in lieu of endotracheal intubation pay which $100 will continue until all Firefighters are provided on -duty endotracheal intubation training. No other changes to Section 25.1 are made. 4. MOU Section 25.6: Ambulance Differential Effective January 1, 1995, two employees assigned to each designated ambulance will each receive $32.40 per 24 -hour shift (was $29.40). B. The Council directs the City Manager to implement the increased financial benefits described as follows: The paychecks no later than the 2nd pay day in November 1998 shall include the increased financial benefits included above. Separate checks shall be issued (1) no later than December 1' 1, 1998 to include retroactive adjustments for 1995 and 1996 and (2) no later than February 19, 1999 to include retroactive adjustment for 1997 and 1998, for the increased financial benefits approved above for all persons employed by the City during such time period who are entitled to increased compensation. 8 C. Pursuant to Charter Section 17 -17, a special election is hereby called to be held in the City of Alameda, State of California, on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, in accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California, for the purpose of voting upon any ballot measures placed before the voters at said election. D. The Election precincts within the City of Alameda for the special election shall be the same as those designated, numbered, fixed and established by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda, State of California, as the election precincts. E. The special election shall be held and conducted, election officers appointed, voting precincts designated, ballots printed, polls opened and closed, ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, results declared, certificates of election issued and all other proceedings incidental to and connected with the election shall be regulated and done, all in accordance with the provisions of law regulating statewide elections. F. The City Clerk is hereby authorized, instructed and directed to provide the Alameda County Registrar of Voters with all pertinent information and material as required to conduct the election. G. The Council shall meet at its usual meeting place to review the certified statement of the results of the election within 28 days of the election and shall thereafter declare the results. H. The Council will place a measure on the ballot at the special election to be held on June 8, 1999, to consider a special tax which, if approved by the electorate, will generate revenues to pay those wages, benefits and employee related expenses which are included in the arbitrator's Award (Exhibit J , pages 112 -116) but which are not approved by the Council above (such difference will be referred to as the "Additional Financial Burdens "). The "Additional Financial Burdens" are shown on Exhibit K , which also includes the total revenues necessary to pay the "Additional Financial Burdens" for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997. 9 I. No later than the 88th day before the June 8, 1999 election, the Council will adopt a resolution (1) imposing a special tax pursuant to California Constitution Article XIIIA, Section 4 and Article XIIIC, section 2(d), to be used to pay the "Additional Financial Burdens" described in Paragraph H above; and (2) increasing the City's appropriations limit pursuant to California Constitution Article XIIIB, section 4. The resolution shall be effective only if approved by two - thirds of the voters voting at the election. The resolution shall specify that the proceeds of the tax will be placed into a special fund to be used only for the purpose of paying the "Additional Financial Burdens" described in Paragraph H above. The resolution shall further specify the type of tax, the rate of tax, the persons subject to the tax, the duration of the t ax, the manner of collection of the tax and such other matters required for the imposition and collection of the tax. The City Manager is directed to notice a public hearing for Council consideration of such resolution no later than 88 days before the June 8, 1999 election. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the County of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 20th day of October , 1998, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and President Appezzato 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . ABSTENTIONS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City this 71 st day of October 1998, EHS:kag:rja J : \WPD\MNRS W\182\MEMO \19 \WAGE.RES Diane B. Felsch, City Clerk City of Alameda 10 CMEASURE C: Shall the Charter ofthe City Of Alameda he amended to provide that firefighters' wages, hours and working conditions shall he established by compulsory and binding 'arhitraton where negotiations required by said Charter amendment do not produce agreement with the City and to provide for the discharge of firefighters who willfully engage in strikes prohibited by said amendment'' Said amendment will he accomplished by adding Sections 27 -1 through 27 -4 to a new Article XXViI of the Charter, all as fully set forth in Resolution No 9367 of the Council of the City of Alameda. YES NO The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes, on petition signed by more than fifteen per- cent (15 %) of the voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election, to amend the Charter of the City of Alameda by adopting Sections 27 -1 through 27-4 of a new Article XXVII thereof, to read: ARTiCLE XXVII Compulsory Arbitration for Fire Department Employee Disputes "Sec. 27 -1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Alameda that strikes by fire fighters are not in the public interest and should be prohibited, and that a method should be adopted for peacefully and equitably resolving disputes that might otherwise lead to such strikes. "Sec. 27 -2. Prohibition Against Strikes. If any fire fighter employed by the City of Alameda willfully engages in a strike against the City, said employee shall be dismissed from his or her employment and may not be reinstated or returned to City employment except as a new employee. No officer, board, council or commission shall have the power to grant amnesty to any employee charged with engaging in a strike against the City. through its duly authorized represent- atives, 27 -3. Obligation to Negotiate in Good Faith. The City, g atives, shall negotiate in good faith with the recognized fire department employee organization on all matters relating to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of City employment, including the establishment of procedures for the resolution through binding arbitration of grievances over the interpretation or application of any negotiated agreement. Unless and until agreement is reached through negotiations between the City and the recognized employee organization for the fire depart- ment or a determination is made through the arbitration procedure hereinafter provided, no existing benefit or condition of employment for the members of the fire department bargaining unit shall be eliminated or changed. "Sec. 27 -4. impasse Resolution Procedures. All disputes or controversies pertaining to wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations between the City and the fire department employee organization shall be submitted to a three- member Board of Arbitrators upon the declaration of an impasse by the City or by the recognized fire depart- ment employee organization. Representatives designated by the City and representatives of the recognized fire department employee organization shall each select one arbitrator to the Board of Arbitrators within three (3) days after either party has notified the other, in writing, that it desires to proceed to arbitration. The third member of the Arbitration Board shall be selected by agreement between the two arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization, and shall serve as the neutral arbitrator and Chair- man of the Board.` In the event that the arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization cannot agree upon the selection of the third arbitrator within ten (10) days from the date that either party has notified the other that it has declared an impasse, then either party may request the State of California Conciliation Service to provide a list of seven (7) persons who are qualified and experi- enced as labor arbitrators. If the arbitrators selected by the City and the employee organization cannot agree within three (3) days after receipt of such list on one of seven (7) to act as the third arbitrator, they shall alternately strike names from the list of nominees until only one name remains and that person shall then become the third arbitrator and chairman of the Arbitration Board. Any arbitration convened pursuant to this article shall be conducted in conformance with, subject, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. At the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the Arbitration Board shall direct each of the part;es to submit, within such time limit as the Board may establish, a last offer of settlement on each of the issues in dispute. The Arbitration Board shall decide each issue by majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on that issue it finds most nearly conforms with those factors tra- ditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and other terms and conditinns of public and private employment, including, but not limited to, changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services, the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services, and the financial condition of the City and its ability to meet the cost of the award. 1 6 H EXHIBIT A After reaching a decision, the Arbitration Board shall mail or otherwise deliver a true copy of its decision to the parties. The decision of the Arbitration Board shall not be publicly disclosed and shall not be binding until ten (10) days after it is delivered to the parties. During that ten day period the parties may meet privately, attempt to resolve their differences, and by mutual agreement amend or modify any of the decisions of the Arbitration Board. At the conclusion of the ten day period, which may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, the decision of the Arbitration Board together with any amendments or modifications agreed to by the parties shall be publicly disclosed and shall be binding upon the parties. The City and the recognized employee organization shall take whatever action is necessary to carry out and effectuate the award. The expenses of any arbitration convened pursuant to this article, including the fee for the services of the Chairman of the Arbitration Board, shall be borne equally by the parties. All other expenses which the parties may incur individually are to be borne by the party incurring such expenses." CITY ATTORNEY'S ANALYSIS - MEASURE C Measure C requires that an arbitrator establish "wages, hours and other terms and conditions of City employment" which are binding on the City, where the Council and the firefighters' association do not reach an agreement pursuant to existing law, which requires the Council to meet and confer with employee associations. "Terms and conditions of employment" is not defined. An expansive inter- pretation of that language would place major operating decisions in the hands of persons not elected or appointed under the City Charter. Arbitrators are not permitted by Measure C to determine what are appropriate wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment but must instead pick between the City's last offer of settlement and the firefighters' last offer of settlement. Measure C prohibits strikes by firefighters. However, there is no law which presently permits strikes by firefighters or prevents their dismissal for that reason. s/ Carter 1. Stroud City Attorney 16I ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE C Most people agree that firefighters should not have the right to strike. Firefighters generally agree with this, too. When firefighters in other cities have gone on strike, it has been because they had no other way of negotiating with their employer as equals. This charter amendment will prevent firefighter strikes in Alameda by creating a fair and equitable alternative. • -Under this charter amendment strikes by firefighters will be absolutely prohibited. Any firefighter who does strike must be terminated. The City will have no power to reinstate striking employees. Nor will it have the power to grant amnesty! The City can only hire a striking firefighter as a new employee. All employment disputes which cannot be resolved through negotiations will be submitted to a three member Arbitration Board. The City chooses one Board member and the firefighters choose another. The first two Board members then choose an impartial member who will act as Chairman. After the Arbitration Board receives evidence from both sides on the unresolved issues, it prepares a report which remains confidential for an additional ten days to allow the parties one more chance to settle their differences. Impartial arbitration has successfully been used in twenty -seven other states. Nevada adopted a similar Procedure in 1977, and Hawaii did the same last year. The cities of Palo Alto, Oakland, Vallejo and Hayward have already amended their charters to provide for impartial arbitration. Those cities have not had any strikes since they adopted impartial arbitration. Your firefighters deserve a "good faith" vote of confidence. They agree that the services they provide should never be interrupted by a strike. They are willing to forego the right to strike if you will give them a fair and equitable alternative. Vote Yes on Measure C. s/Jack H. Liebhart Alameda Citizen s/ Clarence J. Dockery Alameda Citizen s/ Gene S. llacqua Alameda Citizen s /Edward H. Kapellas Alameda Citizen s /Gerald L Gordon Alameda Citizen REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE C Measure C is misleading. It is important that you know why. Firefighters are simply not satisfied with those benefits which all other City employees have received. They sued, claiming the City did not meet and confer in good faith. The Court ruled, however, that the City had met and conferred in good faith. With less revenues, firefighters, like-everyone else, want first priority on the City's available money. But should we sacrifice all other services to fire- fighters' wage demands? No! The Primary Argument in Favor of Ballot Measure C is nothing but a veiled threat to strike if the City does not put firefighters' wages and benefits in the hands of outsiders. Firefighters do not have the right to strike. The threat is a sham. Arbitration will not work because revenues are no longer controlled by the City. Arbitration favors one service over all others. Firefighters have the City's sup- port, but not at the expense of all other services. Vote NO on Measure C and keep control over the City's budget. Vote NO on Measure C and retain the right to say no to exorbitant wage demands. A NO vote on Measure C retains local control. s/ Mayor Chuck Corica, President Alameda City Council s /1im Payton, Member Ad Hoc Efficiency Committee s/ Florence B. Hyde, City Treasurer, Retired 16J ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE C Firefighters would have the citizens of Alameda believe that arbitration provides an equitable resolution to negotiations and prevents strikes. What are the facts. Are our firefighters underpaid? Alameda firefighters presently receive $30,528 total compensation each year. Out of 36 cities in the Bay Area only 10 pay their firefighters more than Alameda firefighters receive. In Alameda County only Oakland and San Leandro pay their firefighters more than Alameda firefighters. Will binding arbitration save money? The costs to the City of Hayward for representation of the City for binding arbitration just com- pleted was approximately $35,000. This does not include the cost of increased wages. The City of Oakland, which has the highest compensated firefighters of the 36 cities, has paid approximately $166,000 in costs in the last six years for arbitration. Oakland firefighters receive $40,884 per year because of arbitration. Arbitration in the City of Detroit has cost the City approximately 50 million additional dollars per year. Will binding arbitration improve fire protection? No!! If firefighters' salaries are increased` beyond the ability of the City to pay, there will have to be less firefighters. Will binding arbitration prevent strikes? Strikes are illegal now. This ballot measure will not make them any more illegal. Detroit workers struck because they did not agree with the arbitrator's decision. Does arbitration take the control of the City treasury out of the peoples' hands? Yes. A Los Angeles arbitrators award cost Hayward over $500,000. if this measure passes, the City will have individuals from outside the City telling us how much to pay our firefighters no matter how much it costs the taxpayer: If the citizens of Alameda continue to want the fine quality of fire protection they receive today at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer, VOTE NO on Measure C. s/ Mayor Chuck Corica, President Alameda City Council s/Jirn Payton, Member Ad Hoc Efficiency Committee s/ Florence B. Hyde, City Treasurer REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE C The politicians have told you nothing but lies and half- truths about arbitration. Arbitration Does Prevent Strikes. It is a lie that Detroit workers struck because they did not agree with an arbitrator's decision. The only Detroit workers who have struck are those who do not have arbitration. Detroit's firefighters have never gone on strike. Check for yourself. Call the City of Detroit Labor Relations Division at 313 - 224 -3860. Arbitration Means Better Fire Protection. Because of arbitration the Oakland City Council has been stopped on three separate occasions from reducing the number of firefighters on duty every day. Arbitration Does Not Lead To Excessive Costs. Oakland firefighters do not receive $40,884 per year because of a'rbitration.The only members of the Oakland Fire Department who make more than $40,000 are the Chief and five Assistant Chiefs. Alameda firefighters do not make $30,528 per year. Only the Fire Chief makes more than $30,000. Check for yourself. Go to the Oakland City Clerk and the Alameda City Clerk and ask to see the current saiary ordinances. The Voters Of Cities Which Already Have Arbitration Are Satisfied That It Works. The voters of Vallejo have twice rejected proposals placed on the ballot by the City Council to eliminate or limit arbitration. The margin of rejection was greater the second time than the first. It is the people, not the politicians, who lose when strikes occur. Don't leave your fire protection in the hands of the politicians. Vote Yes on Measure C. s/ Clarence J. Dockery Alameda Citizen 1 6 K 9 GENERAL ELECTION Tuesday, November 4, 1980 CITY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ALAIVIEDA AMEASURE A: Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended to provide for specific qualifications and duties of an elected Auditor and an elected Treasurer and by placing provisions for the financial management of the City in the Finance Article of the Charter? Said amendment will be , accomplished by amending Sections 4-1, 4-2, 5-1 and 5-2, by adding Sections 17-14, 17-15 and 17-16 and by repealing Sections 4-3, 4-4, 4-5,4-6,4-7 and 5-3 of the Charter, all as fully set forth in Resolution No. 9359 of the Council of the City of Alameda. YES 156 les* MEASURE B: Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended to provide that no additional financial burdens may be imposed on the taxpayers of the City as a result of binding fact finding, arbitration or parity without approval of the voters by providing that no wages, benefits or employee related expenses shall be paid by the City that have not been approved by a resolution of the City Council until additional revenues and appropriations therefor have been approved by a vote of the people pursuant to Proposition 13 (Jarvis-Gann Initiative) and Proposition 4 (Gann Initiative)? (By adding Section 17-17 pur- suant to Resolution No. 9368.) CMEASURE C: Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended to provide that firefighters' wages, hours and working conditions shall be established by compulsory and binding arbitraton where negotiations required by said Charter amendment do not produce agreement with the City and to provide for the discharge of firefighters who willfully engage in strikes prohibited by said amendment? Said amendment will be accomplished by adding Sections 27-1 through 27-4 to a new Article XXVII of the Charter, all as fully set forth in Resolution No. 9367 of the Council of the City of Alameda. YES 165 mo* NO 166 EXHIBIT B C:) BMEASURE 13: Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda he amended to provide that no additional financial burdens may be imposed on the taxpayers of the City as a result of binding fact finding. arbitration or parity without approval of the voters by providing that no wages. benefits or employee related expenses shall be paidby the City that have not been approved by a resolution of the City Council until additional revenues and appropriations therefor have been approved by a vote of the people pursuant to Proposition 13 (Jarvis -Gann Initiative) and Proposition 4 (Gann Initiative)! (By adding Section 17 -17 pur- suant to Resolution No. 936X YES NO The City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its own motion that the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended by adding Section 17 -17 thereto to read as follows: Sec, 17 -17.: No additional financial burdens may be imposed on the taxpayers of the City as a result of binding fact finding, arbitration or parity without approval of the voters as set forth in this Section. Any other provision of this Charter notwithstanding, no wages, benefits or employee related expenses shall be paid by the City that have not been approved by a resolution of the City Council until additional revenues and appropriations therefor have been approved by a vote of the people pursuant to Proposition 13 (Cal. Const. Art. XIIIA, Sec. 4) and Proposition 4 (Cal. Const. Art. XI1(B, Sec. 4). The City Council shall not be required to call such an election more than once a year and may con- solidate said elections with elections held for other purposes. CITY ATTORNEY'S ANALYSIS— MEASURE B Measure B provides for voter approval of any employee related financial' burdens placed on the City by persons who are not elected by the people. No vote is required for Council approved wages, benefits or expenses. Only the difference between what the Council has approved and what an arbi- trator or other non - elected person has approved requires voter approval. In those cases the voters must approve both an additional revenue source and an increase in the appropriations limit, according to the procedures established by the State Constitution. . s/ Carter J. Stroud City Attorney 1 6 E ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B The citizens of Alameda want to control the cost of government. The passage of Proposition 13 and Proposition 4 have made this very clear. Measure 8 would provide for a vote of the people in accordance with Proposition 13 before any additional costs would be passed on to the citizens. VOTE YES on Measure 8. s /Mayor Chuck Corica, President Alameda City Council REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B The politicians want to use arbitration as an excuse to raise your taxes. They say it will increase the costs of government. Don't believe them. None of the cities that already have arbitration have found it necessary to increase taxes to pay the costs of arbitration. Under Measure C, the costs of arbitration are split fifty -fifty between the city and the firefighters. The firefighters must pay just as much as the city. They would not want arbitration if it was really as expensive as the politicians say. Many negotiations are settled without arbitration. Experience has proven that arbitration encour- ages good faith bargaining. Oakland police officers have had arbitration for six years and have never had to use it. Vallejo police officers and miscellaneous employees have had arbitration since 1970. Each group has used it only once. But even when negotiations break down and arbitration becomes necessary, it is well worth the price. If, as the mayor says, the recent Hayward arbitration over a two -year contract cost the city $35,000, that is still far less than the hundreds of thousands of dollars the recent firefigt er strike in Mountain View cost the citizens of that city. Don't give the politicians a blank check. Try arbitration and see if your firefighters aren't right when they say it will not increase the costs of government. Vote No on Measure B. s /Clarence J. Dockery Alameda Citizen 1 6 F ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B This ballot measure is a sham. The City Council placed it on the ballot to make you believe that arbitration of Fire Department employment disputes will require higher taxes. That is simply not true. Proposition 13 placed a rigid maximum on the property taxes the City can impose. Measure C will not change that maximum in any way. Your taxes can be increased only if you authorize an increase by a yes vote on Measure B. What this measure would do is require a special two- thirds vote of the people to ratify any arbi- tration award which did not adopt the City Council's position. This provision is so onesided that the City Council would have no motivation whatsoever, to negotiate with the firefighters in good faith. The result would be to provoke strikes, not eliminate them. Remember, last year the City Council did not place its last best offer on the bargaining table until after the firefighters engaged in a sickout. The City Council may use the same bargaining tactics next year and force the firefighters into a strike. Measure C provides a better way of resolving employment disputes. It requires the Arbitration Board to take into account the financial condition of the City and its ability to meet the cost of the award. The City Council will thus have a full opportunity to persuade the Arbitration Board that it cannot afford any proposal more costly than its own. If that is actually true the arbitration award must take that fact into account or it will be illegal and void. No other city with arbitration has found it necessary to impose special taxes to pay the cost of an arbitration award. There is no reason why Alameda should be any different. Vote No on Measure B. s /Jack H. Liebhart Alameda Citizen s /Gerald L Gordon Alameda Citizen s/ Edward H. Kapellas Alameda Citizen slGene S. llacqua Alameda Citizen s/ Clarence 1. Dockery Alameda Citizen REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE B A YES vote on Measure 8 means there will be no additional financial burdens placed on Alameda taxpayers without the voters agreeing to such an increase. I believe Measure B is a necessary safeguard. If an outside arbitrator is to award more money to one employee group than the City has to pay for all City services, either more funds must be approved by the voters, or cuts in other services will be required. Vote YES on Measure B. s/ Mayor Chuck Corica, President Alameda City Council 16G GENERAL ELECTION Tuesday, November 3, 1992 CITY OF ALAMEDA provisions MEASURE U: Shall the Alameda City Charter be amended being repeal i payers as Charter which prevent additional financial burdens a result of binding arbitration without a vote of the people and to to financial l bcne(ope of such binding arbitration for fire `employees to include, in addition tioet forth nnn Alameda City matters related to wages, hours and work condition r Council Resolution No 12299? YES 211* NO 212► MEASURE increases without E: Shall the ppr Charter ue to binding arbitration of r el related to fire fighterrshregular YES 21 % 1 monthly without aoter pp NO 21 B monthly salary range and to prevent fire fighter strikes by adopting such binding XII, arbitration provisions? The icle XXVII and by,an be amending Chart r Section 17 17 as more Article }CXVII, adopting new Article in Alameda City Council Resolution No. 12302: F Advisory Vote Only MEASURE F: Shall the City Council authorize negotiations with the City's Firefighters' Union in order to implement an alternative work schedule to change the existing work schedule of approximately ten shifts per month to twenty shifts of shorter duration per month? YES 224 NO 225 EXHIBIT C CITY OF ALAMEDA MEASURE MEASURE D: Shall the Alameda City Charter be amended to repeal provisions of the Charter which prevent additional financial burdens from being imposed on taxpayers as a result of binding arbitration without a vote of the people and to enlarge the scope of such binding arbitration for fire employees to include, in addition to financial benefits, all matters related to wages, hours and work conditions as more fully sct forth in Alameda City Council Resolution'No.12299? FULL TEXT OF MEASURE D YE NO CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12299 PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, UPC PETITION OF QUALIFIED VOTERS, ENLARGING TIIE SCOPE OF BINDING ARI3ITRATION FC FIRE FIGIiTERS AND DELETING PROVISIONS REQUIRING` VOTER APPROVAL OF ADL TIONAL FINANCIAL BURDENS AS A RESULT OF BINDING ARBITRATION; AND DIRECTIN TI-IE PROPOSAL TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT IN THE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTIC TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992 WI-IEREAS, the City of Alameda has received a petition proposing to amend the City Charter; and Wl- IEREAS, said petition has been certified by the City Clerk as being sufficient. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby accepts said petition for the amendment of the City Charter. Said petition p to repeal Article XXVII of the Alameda City Charter (the "Charter ") related to compulsory arbitration fo, t Department employee disputes in its entirety, and to adopt a new Article XXVII enlarging the scope of bind arbitration' for fire employees to include, in addition to financial benefits, all matters related to wages, hours and WC conditions and to repeal, in its entirety, Section 17 -17 of Article XVIi of the Alameda City Charter related to reservi the right of the voters to approve any financial burdens occasioned by binding arbitration. Section 2. As provided in Section 1 above, a new Article XXVII is proposed to read as follows: ARTICLE XXVII IMPARTIAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE DISPUTES Section 27 -1 Declaration` of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Alameda that strikes firefighters are not in the public interest and should be prohibited, and that a method should be adopted for peace ft and equitably resolving disputes that might otherwise lead to such strikes. Section 27 -2 Prohibition Against Strikes. If any firefighter employed by the City of Alameda willfully engages i strike against the City, said employee shall be dismissed from his or her employment and may not be reinstated returned to City employment except as a new employee. No officer, board, council or commission shall have the post to grant amnesty to any employee charged with engaging in a strike against the City. Section 27 -3 Obligation to Negotiate in Good Faith. The City, through its duly authorized representatives, sl negotiate in good faith with recognized fire department employee organizations on all matters related to the wag hours, and other terms and conditions of City employment, including the establishment of procedures for t resolution of grievances concerning the interpretation of application of an negotiated agreement. Unless a •r agreement is reached through negotiations between authorized representatives of the City and a recognized en., ..t organization for the fire department or a determination is made through the arbitration procedure hereinaf provided, no existing benefit, term or condition of employment for said fire department employees shall be alter( eliminated or changed. Section 27 -4 Impasse in Negotiations. All disputes or controversies pertaining to wages, hours or terms and conditions of employment which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations between the City and a fire partment employee organization shall be submitted to a three - member Board of Arbitrators upon the declara- -.in of an impasse by the City or by the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute. Section 27 -5 Appointment of Three Member Arbitration Board. Representatives designated by the City at representatives of the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute shall each select and appoint one arbitrator to the Board of Arbitrators within three (3) days after either party has notified' the other, in writing. that it desires to proceed to arbitration. The third member of the Arbitration Board shall be selected by agree- ment between the City and the employee organization, and shall serve as the neutral arbitrator and Chairperson of the Board. In the event that the City and the recognized employee organization involved in the dispute cannot agree upon the selection of the neutral arbitrator within ten (10) days from the date that either party has notified the other that it has declared an impasse, either party may then request the State Mediation and Conciliation Ser- vice of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations to provide a list of seven (7) persons who arc qualified and experienced as labor arbitrators. If the City and the Bargaining Unit cannot agree within three (3) days after receipt of such list on one of seven (7) persons to act as the neutral arbitrator, they shall alternately strike names from the list of nominees until one name remains and that person shall then become the neutral arbitrator and Chairperson of the Board. Section 27 -6 Arbitration _I learing Procedures. Any arbitration proceeding pursuant to this Article shall be conducted in conformance with, subject to, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Arbitration Board shall hold public hearings, receive evidence from the panics and cause a transcript of the proceedings to be prepared. The Arbitration Board, in the exercise of its discretion, may meet privately with the parties and mediate or mede -arb issues in dispute. The Arbitration Board may also adopt such other procedures that are designed to encourage an agreement between the parties, expedite the arbitration aring process, or reduce the costs of the arbitration process. „ection 27 -7 Final Offers; Criteria for Arbitration Award. In the event no agreement is reached prior to conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the Arbitration Board shall direct each of the parties to submit, within si time limit as the Arbitration Board may establish, a last offer of settlement on each of the remaining issues in dispute. The Arbitration Board shall decide each issue by majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on the issue it finds most nearly conforms to those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of public and private employment, including, but not limited to the following: changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services; the wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of employment of employees performing similar services; and the financial condition of the City of Alameda and its ability to meet the costs of the decision of the Arbitration Board. Section 27 -8 Submission of Awards. After reaching a decision, the Arbitration Board shall mail or otherwise deliver a true copy of its decision to the parties. The decision of the Arbitration Board shall not be publicly disclosed and shall not be binding until the ten (10) days after it is delivered to the parties. During that ten (10) day period the parties shall meet privately, attempt to resolve their difference, and by mutual agreement amend or modify the decision of the Arbitration Board. At the conclusion of the ten (10) day period, which may be extended by mutual agreement ,between the parties, the decision of the Arbitration Board, as it may be modified or amended by the parties, shall be publicly disclosed and shall be binding on the parties. The City and the employee organization shall take all actions necessary to carry out and effectuate the arbitration award. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Charter, no other actions by the City Council or by the electorate to confirm or approve the decision of the Arbitration Board, or any part or provision thereof, shall be permitted or required. Section 27 -9 Arbitration Expenses. The expenses of any arbitration proceeding convened pursuant to this Article, including the fee for the services of the chairperson of the Arbitration Board and the costs of prepara + i ^n I the transcript of the proceedings shall be borne equally by the parties. All other expenses which the parties i' y incur individually are to be borne by the party incurring such expenses. Section 27 -10 Action by the City Council. It is the intent of this Article to conclude all phases of the negotiation. mediation and arbitration process prior to the beginning, of a fiscal year. After consultation with the affected nrployec organization(s) the City Council shall have the limited authority to adopt procedures by resolution or dinance which provide a timetable for the submission of contract proposals, the selection of arbitrators, th^ olding of hearings, and the issuance of arbitration awards. section 3. As proposed in Section 1 above, Section 17 -17 of Article XVII is proposed to be repealed as follows: Section 17 -17. Ne ddit -iennl nrrneial-htwdens- y-be-iripe Sad -ett- the -tirtit r t- ef- hintling €eat- ftndingrarbitratietrer pity — without -t p ral- e€ -t! }e- Meters as net fo gi&ft ef-En ter- rtetwith tnfli &er- pjleyee -rel - ;y- late -C+t - t1>ftt have net- been-app F&Yed-hy n resolution-e€-the City Cotn}eil-uttt+l- edditfemrl -r pepriRtierts- therefor have been -ap preved by n vote the- Peeple pur epesitien4 -(Gal. Conat. Art. XIIIA, Sec. 4)Prorn -si- 11- 4- EQat- Eenst. Art. XIII' , :e- fetrife n- trtefe -than enec n yeaff-and- may- eenselif#atc said-the -eleetien -w' f-et ef- pufpeses: CITY ATTORNEY'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE D This measure would amend the Alameda City Charter by repealing section 17 -17 and replacing Article XXVII with a new Article XXVII. This measure would completely repeal Section 17 -17 of the City Charter which currently requires the voters to approve additional financial burdens imposed on the taxpayers as a result of binding arbitration. Article XXVII presently sets forth a procedure for impartial and binding arbitration for firefighter disputes pertaining 9.. nnancial benefits including salary, supplementary cash entitlements, and other benefits such as vacation and holidays. measure would increase the items which are subject to arbitration to include all matters related to wages, hours a•• -t :ter terms and conditions of City employment, including the establishment of procedures for grievances concerning Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the firefighters union. This measure requires that any changes to such items be agreed to through the meet and confer or arbitration process. This measure also sets forth the procedures for arbitration. Part of the procedures include criteria for evaluating the City and firefighters' position. Criteria include the financial condition of the City and its ability to meet the award, CPI, and comparison to similar employees. This measure limits the authority of the City Council regarding arbitration and requires the City Council to carry out any award made as a result of arbitration. This measure also provides that all negotiations and any necessary arbitration should conclude before the start of the fiscal year. Article XXVII currently prohibits the City from hiring employees who engaged in strikes. This measure would also allow employees who have engaged in strikes to be hired as new employees. It is believed that the result of this measure would increase financial impacts on the City as a result of binding arbitration. s/HEATHER C. McLAUGIILIN Acting City Attorney ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE D ure D would establish a fair process which would provide binding arbitration as the final step in resolving .grcements before they become major disputes. Measure D prohibits strikes and contrary to state law requires termination of employees who do strike. Measure D requires the city and firefighters to negotiate in good faith. Measure D requires that all awards obtained through arbitration be based on "the financial condition of the City of Alameda and its ability to meet the costs of the arbitration award. Measure D DOES NOT RAISE TAXES unlike a city proposal that does. In fact, measure D saves tax dollars by placing a realistic time limit on negotiations and avoiding expensive labor disputes. Over 8,000 Alameda citizens signed petitions to place Measure D on the ballot. Bindg i n b rbit states and the settle disputes in Business, Real Estate, Insurance, and by Health Care Providers. It is y San Leandro, Hayward, Oakland, San Francisco, Palo Alto, and San Jose as well as several other Bay Area cities. Please Vote Yes on Measure D s /CHARLES A. TILLMAN s /ARTHUR J. McKEE s /DIANE- COLER-DARK REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE D NO on Measure D. The proponents of Measure D have not told you the whole story. Perhaps most important, measure deletes essential language in our City Charter. As it stands today, no d passes, fin right lto burden ft arbitration may be imposed on the taxpayers without voter approval. If this measure p , your this sort of tax increase will go out the window. Second, the proponents' assertion that this measure prohibits strikes and il terminate employees that d strike, is at least superfluous, and at most deceptive. Existing state law already p firefighters. binr es be tricked. Last, if you allow this measure to pass, the Fire Chief's authority to set working conditions, discipline employees, and make decisions in the interest of public safety may be vetoed by an outside arbitrator. This arbitrator will likely not be an Alamedan and may have no experience in fire safety, city finance, or taxes. Protect our public safety and our City Charter. Vote NO on D'. sIJOSEPFI CAMICIA, Councihncmbcr s /E. WILLIAM WITHROW, JR., Mayor s /RICIIARD A. ROTH, Councilmembcr s /KARIN LUCAS, Vice-Mayor s /A.J. "LIL" ARNERICH, Councilmember ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE D feasure D is purposely deceptive. It will not prevent strikes by fire fighters, but it will cost you money and adermine the authority of our Fire Chief. That prompted this measure? Last year a few fire fighters were caught lowering the volume on the fire station a,. .,) system. After a police investigation, those responsible were rightly disciplined by the Fire Chief. Now a handful of fire fighters want you to help them overturn the Chief's decisions. The Alameda Fire Fighters' Association, Local 689 wrote this measure in hope that an outside arbitrator would vetc the decisions of their boss, the Fire Chief. At present, the Chief has authority to discipline employees and se standards, procedures, and working conditions that best protect the safety of citizens of Alameda. Do not allow thi, to change. If we let this happen, the authority of our Fire Chief will be called into constant question and your safety will be jeopardized. Last, and perhaps most important, under this measure, any financial award by the outside arbitrato will automatically be passed on as a tax increase! This measure prohibits your right to vote for or against any new tax Vote NO on D. s /E.W. WITIIROW, JR., Mayor s/RICHARD A. ROTH, Councilmember s /JOSEPH A. CAMICIA, Councilmember s /ANTHONY J. "LIL" ARNERICH, Councilmembc s /KARIN LUCAS, Vice -Mayor REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE D -he city claims Measure D is misleading. The city claim is easy to make but impossible to prove. We challenge .nyone to find anything deceptive about Measure D. Measure D effectively prohibits strikes. If guaranteed termination does not prohibit strikes then nothing does. Measure D will not undermine the Fire Chief's authority to discipline firefighters. In fact Measure D has nothing tc do with current disciplinary procedures. Measure D does not in any way create new taxes nor does it interfere with your right to vote on any new taxes. Jus read the text of our proposal and you will see that the only thing Measure D does is provide a fair way of settlin; disputes. You would want this for yourself. FIREFIGHTERS DESERVE FAIRNESS! PLEASE VOTE YES ON D! s/ARTI IUR J. McKEE s/DIANE COLER -DARK CITY OF ALAMEDA PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT As MEASURE E: Shall the City Charter of the City of Alameda be amended to prohibit tax increases without voter approval due to binding arbitration related to fire fighters regular monthly salary range and to prevent fire fighter strikes by adopting such binding arbitration provisions? The amendment will be accomplished by repealing existing Article XXVII, adopting new Article XXVII and by amending Charter Section 17 -17 as more fully set forth in Alameda City Council Resolution No 12302. YES NO FULL TEXT OF MEASURE E CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12302 PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, UPON MOTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AMENDING SECTION 17 -17 OF THE ALAMEDA CHARTER REGARDING TIIE RIGI IT TO VOTE ON CERTAIN FINANCIAL ISSUES CAUSED BY BINDING ARBITRATION AND REPEALING ARTICLE XXVII REGARDING COMPULSORY ARBITRA- 'T'ION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE DISPUTES AND ADOPTING A NEW ARTICLE XXVII REGARDING PROHIBITING FIRE FIGI -TTER STRIKES AND REQUIRING BINDING ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES OVER SALARY AND Di RECTING THE PROPOSALS BE PLACED ON TIIE BALLOT IN TIIE NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3,1992 BE I'1' RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI'T'Y OF ALAMEDA as follows: Section 1. The City Council, on, its own motion, hereby proposes to repeal Article XXVII of the Alameda Charter (the "Charter ") related to compulsory arbitration for Fire Department employee disputes in its entirety, anu a new Article XXVII related to arbitration of Fire Department salary disputes and to amend section 17 -17 of Article XVii of the Alameda City Charter related to reserving the right of the voters to approve any financial burdens occasioned by binding arbitration. Section 2. As provided in Section 1 above, a new Article XXVII is proposed to read as follows: "ARTICLE XXVII IMPARTIAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE DISPUTES Section 27 -1 Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City of Alameda that strikes by firefighters are not in the public interest and are prohibited, and that a method should be adopted for peacefully and equitably resolving disputes. Section 27 -2 Prohibition Against Strikes. If any firefighter employed by the City of Alameda engages in a strike against the City, said employee shall be dismissed from his or her employment and may not be reinstated or returned to City employment. No officer, board, council or commission shall have the power to grant amnesty to any employee charged with engaging in a strike against the City. Section 27 -3 Obligation to Meet and Confer in Good Faith. The City, through its duly authorized representative, shall meet and confer in good faith with the City recognized Fire Department employee organization representing the classifications of Firefighter, Apparatus Operator, Fire Lieutenant, and Fire Captain, (the "Bargaining Unit ") on all matters relating to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of City employment as provided f■ n Government Code Section 3505. Unless and until agreement is reached through meet and confer betv n authorized representatives of the City and the Bargaining Unit or a determination is made through the imparta' arbitration procedure hereinafter provided, no existing regular monthly salary range for represented Bargainin€ Unit employees shall be changed. EXHIBIT D Section 27-4 Impasse In Negotiations. All disputes or controversies pertaining to regular monthly salary range which remain unresolved after good faith meetings and conferring between the City and the Bargaining Unit shall he submitted to a three - member Board of Arbitrators upon the.dcclaration of an impasse by the City or by thc Bargaining Unit involved in this dispute. Section 27 -5 Appointment of Three Member Arbitration Board. Representatives designated by the City representatives of the Bargaining, Unit (hereinafter collectively referred' to a "parties") involved in the dispute shall each select and appoint one arbitrator to the Board of Arbitrators within three (3) days after either party has notified the other, in writing, that it desires to proceed to arbitration. The third member of the Arbitration Board shall be selected by agreement between the City and the Bargaining Unit and shall serve as the neutral arbitrator and Chairperson of the Board. In the event that the City and the Bargaining Unit involved in the dispute cannot agree Upon the selection of the neutral arbitrator within ten (10) days from the date that either party has notified the other that it has declared an impasse, either party may then request the State Mediation and Conciliation Service of thc State of California Department of Industrial Relations to provide a list of seven (7) persons who are qualified and experienced as labor arbitrators. If the City and the Bargaining Unit cannot agree within three (3) days after receipt of such list on one of seven (7) persons to act as the neutral arbitrator, they shall alternately strike names from the list of nominees until one name remains and that person shall then become the neutral arbitrator and Chairperson of the Board. Section 27 -6 Arbitration Hearing Procedures. Any arbitration proceeding pursuant 'to this Article shall be conducted in conformance with, subject to, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Arbitration Board shall hold public hearings, receive evidence from the parties and cause a transcript of the proceedings to be prepared. The Arbitration Board, in the exercise of its discretion, may meet, privately with the parties and mediate or mede -arb issues in dispute. Section 27 -7 Final Offers; Criteria for Arbitration Award. In the event no agreement is reached prior' to the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the Arbitration Board shall direct each of the parties to submit within such time limit as the Arbitration Board may establish a last offer of settlement on regular monthly salary range issues ;n dispute. The Arbitration Board shall decide the issue by majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settler on the issue it finds most nearly conforms to those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of regular monthly salary range, including, but not limited to the following: the financial condition of the City of Alameda and its ability to meet the costs of the decision of the Arbitration Board without adversely affecting City services; changes in the average consumer price index for goods in the Bay Area and services; private sector labor settlements; supply and demand of applicants in the labor pool for Fire Department positions; the wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of ernployment of employees performing similar services; the State and Bay Arca unemployment rates and economic conditions of the Bay Area. Section 27 -8 Submission of Awards. After reaching a decision, the Arbtration Board shall mail or othenvisc deliver a true copy of its decision to the parties. The decision of the Arbitration Board shall not be publicly disclosed and shall not be binding until the ten (10) days after it is delivered to the parties. During that ten (10) day period the parties shall meet privately, 'attempt to resolve their difference, and by mutual agreement amend or modify the decision of the Arbitration Board. At the conclusion of the ten (10) day period, which may extended by mutual agreement between the parties, the decision of the Arbitration Board, as it may be modified or amended by the parties, shall be publicly disclosed and shall be binding �n the parties except as provided in Article 17, Section 17 -17. Section 27 -9 Arbitration Expenses. The expenses of any arbitration proceeding convened pursuant to this Article, including the fee for the services of the chairperson of the Arbitration Board and the costs of preparation of the transcript of the proceedings shall be borne equally by the parties. All other expenses which the parties may incur individually are to be borne by the party incurring such expenses. Section 3. ' As proposed in Section 1 above, a new Section 17 -17 of Article XVII is proposed to read as follows: Section 17 -17. In order to protect the taxpayers of the City from incurring additional financial burdens which may be imposed on the taxpayers as a result of binding arbitration, approval of the voters shall be required as set forth i section. Any other provision of this Charter notwithstanding, no regular monthly salary created by binarng arbitration shall be paid by the City that has not been approved by a resolution of the City Council unless and until additional revenues and appropriations therefor have been approved by a vote of the people pursuant to Proposition 13 (Cal. Const. Art. XIIIA, Sec. 4) and are found to be within the appropriation ch an limits ti set out in Proposition ce e4 (Cal. Art. XIIIB (Sec. 4)). The City Council shall not be required to call ay consolidate said election with elections held for other purposes. pursuant to Government Code Section 4. The City Council hereby proposes the and electors of the City of Alameda in an election to be ection 4080(a)(2), submit these proposals to qualified onsolidated with and voted upon at the November 3, 1992 general election. CITY ATTORNEY ' S IMPARTIAL. ANALYSI OF EASURE E This measure would amend the Alameda City Charter by replacing Article XXVII with a new Article XXVII and imending section 17 -17. Section 17 -17 pertains to the voters' right to approve additional financial burdens imposed on the taxpayers as a result 3f binding arbitration. The proposed amendment makes technical amendments Article section to clarify the legal 3istinction between Propositions 13 and 4 and to conform to the proposed chang es to Article XXVII pertains to Impartial and Binding Arbitration for Fire Department Employee Disputes. This measure. as with the present Article XXVII, applies to Fire Department employees up to the rank of Fire Captain. The proposed Article XXVII would narrow the scope of issues subject to binding arbitration fm financial tnc monnefits in salary range. sl The supplementary cash entitlements, and other benefits such as vacation and holidays proposal also sets forth the procedures for arbitration and includes such issues as picking an arbitrator and deadlines for the process. The procedures set forth criteria for the arbitrators to use in deciding whether to any adverse fthe City the tr- "'refrghters. Criteria involve the effect of the decision will have on City including and demand for labor pool, private sector labor settlements, and unemployment rates and economic conditions. It is believed that the result of this measure would decrease financial impacts on the City as a result of arbitration. s/HEATHER C. McLAUGFILIt Acting City Attorney ARGUMENT IN FAVOR Oi' MEASURE E Vote "Ycs" on E. This measure protects your right to vote on tax increases and prevents an outside arbitrator from over - turning personnel, disciplinary, and other decisions of our fire chief. voters A "Yes" vote ensures that no outside arbitrator can set the salaries of fire n fighters without the approval of for outside arbitration whenever and /or your City Council. Without this measure, the fire fighters they do no get everything they want from the city or fire chief. At that point an outside arbitrator, who most likely won't be a resident of our city, will decide what is best for the citizens of Alatneda. Should this measure pass, the fire chief will retain his authority to set standards, procedures and working conditions that protect the public safety. Without this measure, the fire chief's authority to protect the public safety could be called into constant question. Preserve your right to control your taxes. Vote "Yes" on E to prohibit an outside arbitrator with no connection to our city from saddling the taxpayers of Alameda with additional debt. W. WITI-IROW, JR., Mayor s/JOSEPH A. CAMICIA, Councilmember .RIN LUCAS, Vice Mayor s/ANTHONY J. "LIL" ARNERICH, Councilmemb s /RICIIARD A. ROTII, Councilrnember REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE E )°asure E stands for Extra Taxes! Measure E says that any arbitration decision will be subjected to an expensive vote le electorate. Measure E will force you to increase your taxes, even thqugh you already pay enough tax for your fire emergency medical protection. Fire Chiefs in ten Bay Area cities that have binding arbitration retain authority to set standards, procedures, and working conditions. In fact these cities enjoy smoother daily operation of the fire department without political interference. Measure E is poorly written and has no place in your city charter. Its vague and undefined language will require interpretation by the courts which will cost more taxpayer money. SAVE TAX DOLLARS! VOTE NO ON EXTRA TAXESI VOTE NO ON E! s/ARTI -IUR J. McKEE s/DIANE COLER -DARK • ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE E Measure E was placed on the ballot by the Alameda City Council. It is an attempt by the City Council tc counter the Fire Fighters Measure D. Similar ballot measures' have been placed on the ballot by other City Councils and most have been wisely rejected by the voters. Please read the City Council's proposal carefully. You will see it is misleading, as it is meant to be. Measure E proposes Binding Arbitration for Fire Fighters and effectively takes it away, later in the Measure. Measure E was hastily placed on the ballot by the City Council and it shows. It will guarantee a court case over interpretation, should it ever be used Measure E all but guarantees lengthy and costly negotiations. Measure E would unnecessarily require special elections and increased taxes. Simply stated Measure E is not what it may appear to be It is in fact a CONFUSING and MISLEADING proposal that has no place in your City Charter. Please read it carefully and you will see that this is true. vote NO on measure E s/Cl iARLES A. TILLMAN s/ARTI-IUR J. McKEE s /DIANE COLER -DARK REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE E Measure E was placed on the ballot in response to the firefighters' measure (D) which attempts to allow an outside arbitrator to give open -ended awards which could place severe financial hardships on the City. Measure E limits arbitration awards to money the taxpayers of Alameda are willing to approve over and above what the City Council has adopted in the current budget. The City Charter already contains firefighter arbitration language. There was absolutely no need for the firefighters sk the voters for additional arbitration powers. ry should know, however, that all firefighter negotiations for the past 15 years have been lengthy and costly beep. their requests are many and extremely costly, covering anything from the size of bulletin boards to top sa. demands. aother thing, a Special Election would only be held if a firefighter arbitration award placed an undue burden of ,.b.,..,cant proportions on the City's Treasury. Reminder: Measure E protects the financial stabiiitY City by not only he Voter firefighters but also the safety of the protects the Fire Chief's right to manage the department g Citizens of Alameda. s/E. WILLIAM WI'I1 IROW, JR., Mayor s/KARIN LUCAS, Vice -Mayor s /A.J. "LiL" ARNERICII, Councilmembcr VOTE YES ON E s/JOSEPEi CAMiCiA, Councihncmhcr s/RICHARD A. ROTH, Councilmember CITY OF ALAMEDA ADVISORY VOTE ONLY MEASURE F: Shall the City Council authorize negotiations with the City's Firefighters' Union in order to implement an alternative work schedule to change the existing work schedule of approximately ten shifts per month to twenty shifts of shorter duration per month? YES NO CITY ATTORNEY'S' IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE F City of Alameda firefighters currently work approximately ten shifts per month The aw requires it the to meet at confer in good faith if the City wants to change the work hours of firefighter. "advisory express their opinion on whether the City Council should authorize negotiations (meeting and conferring) between the City and the City's firefighters' union in order to implement an alternative work schedule of approximately twenty shifts of shorter duration per month. It is believed this schedule could be accomplished without additional financial impact on the City. • 'Phis measure is merely an expression of voter opinion and in no manner is controlling on the City of Alameda. s/HEATIIER C. McLAUGI ILIN Acting City Attorney ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE F This measure is an advisory vote only The City Council is interested in your opinion before beginning the next round of labor negotiations with the Alameda Firefighters Association, Local 689. the At c uestion is the present practice of 24 -hour fire shifts. The 24 -hour shift, in which firefighters thle189t)'s r before fire station, is a remnant of the horse and buggy there 1 era. The 24 -hour shift made sense back were telephones, smoke detectors and computerized fire alarm systems. 'en the dramatic improvements in telecommunications and transportation, there is no need for the 24 -hour shift do approach the 21st century. Unlike the 1890's, today, Alameda's:frrefighters are on duty only ten days month. I3ccausc of the 24 -hour duration, firefighters sleep, prepare meals, and have considerable personal tim, the fire station during the course of each shift. given the dramatic improvements in While no one questions the importance of a professional fire department, g technology, should firefighters be given 20 days off per month? No other City employees enjoy this luxury. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between CITY OF ALAMEDA INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 689 This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the City of Alameda and International Association of Firefighters, Local 689, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3500 et seq of the Government Code of the State of California. The parties have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment for the employees in said representation unit, and have freely exchanged information, opinions and proposals and have reached agreement on all matters set forth in this Agreement relating to the employment conditions and employer - employee relations of such employees. This Memorandum of Understanding shall be presented to the City Council of the City of Alameda as the joint recommendation of the undersigned parties for salary and employee benefit adjustments for the period commencing January 1, 1993 and ending December 31, 1994. Section 1. Recognition 1.1 Union Recognition International Association of Firefighters, Local 689, hereinafter referred to as the "Union," has been recognized as the majority representative, pursuant to the Employer- Employee Resolution No. 7476, to include the following employee classifications; Firefighter, Fire Apparatus Operator, Fire Lieutenant, and Fire Captain. 1.2 City Recoznition The Municipal Employee Relations Officer of the City of Alameda or any person or organization duly authorized by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer, is the representative of the City of Alameda, hereinafter referred to as the "City" in employer - employee relations, as provided in Resolution No 7476 adopted by the City Council. on May 21, 1969. Section 2. Union Security International Association of Firefighters, Local 689, shall be the only employee organization for which the City makes payroll deductions for membership dues for the members of the bargaining unit represented by International Association of Firefighters, Local 689. The following procedures shall be observed in the withholding of employee earnings: (1) Payroll deductions from the earnings of an employee for payment to International Association of Firefighters, Local 689, shall be made only upon receipt by the City Finance Director of a written authorization from such employee for such deductions on a payroll deduction form provided by the City. No payroll deductions shall be made by the City for fines imposed by International Association of Firefighters, Local 689, upon a member thereof. (2) A payroll deductions authorization executed by a member of the bargaining unit shall remain in effect so long as that person remains a member of the bargaining unit or provides a written notice to the City Manager upon a form provided by the City that such authorization has been revoked. Any such revocation shall become effective thirty (30) days after it is submitted to the City Finance Director. (3) The Union's Treasurer shall certify in writing to the City Finance Director the amounts which the City is to deduct from the earnings of those members of the bargaining unit who have authorized such deductions, and any changes in such amounts, provided, however, that notice of such changes must be submitted to the City Finance Director thirty (30) days before they are to be implemented. Payroll deductions shall be apportioned such that an equal deduction is made in each pay period. Such deductions shall be remitted to the Union's Treasurer within fifteen (15) days after they are made. (4) The employee's earnings must be sufficient, after all other required deductions are made, to cover the amount of the deductions herein authorized. When an employee is in a non -pay status for an entire pay period, no withholdings will be made to cover that pay period from future earnings nor will the employee deposit the amount with the City which would have been withheld if the employee had been in a pay status during that period. In the case of'an employee who is in a non -pay status during a part of the pay period, and the salary is not sufficient to cover., the full withholding, no deduction shall be made. In this connection, all other required deductions have priority over payroll deductions for payment to the Union, and the Union shall be notified within fifteen C15) days when the Union's deductions are withheld. (5) In the event a salary increase for the members of the bargaining unit is made retroactively, the City shall deduct from all paychecks conveying such retroactive salary increase and-remit to the Union's Treasurer those amounts certified by the Union's Treasurer as amounts due to the Union from such paychecks for dues, assessments, and other payments owed to the Union. (6) The Union shall file with the Ci Manager an indemnity statement wherein the Union shall indemnify, de end and hold the City harmless against any claim made and against any suit initiated against the City on account of check off of Union dues, assessments and other payments to the Union. In addition, the Union shall refund to the City any amounts paid to it in error upon presentation of supporting, evidence. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Union retains all of the rights granted to it by the Meyers - Milias -Brown Act and the Alameda City Charter. Section 3. Union Representatives Union representatives who are official representatives of the Union shall be given reasonable time off with pay to attend meetings with management representatives, or to be present at hearings where matters within the scope of representation or grievances are being considered. The use of official time for this purpose shall be reasonable and shall not interfere with the performance of City services. Such employee representatives shall submit through the Fire Department chain of command a written request for excused absence to the Fire Chief at least forty -eight (48). hours prior to the scheduled meeting whenever possible. Except by mutual agreement, the number of employees excused for such purposes shall not exceed three (3). Union representatives may use their accrued vacation leave, compensatory time, and shift trades for the purpose of attending Union conventions, Union conferences and Union seminars. Such vacation leave shall not be counted against the total number QLf employees who may be on vacation leave at any one time, provided, however, that no more than one (1) employee per shift may be eligible for such vacation leave. Such shift trades shall not be counted as a part of the total number of trades an employee may make per month. section 4, Access to Work Locations Reasonable access to employee work locations shall be granted officers of the Union and officially designated representatives of the Union for the purpose of processing grievances or contacting members of the Union concerning business within the scope of representation which are to be discussed with City representatives. Such officers or representatives shall obtain the signature of the Fire Chief or his/her designated representative on a department provided form prior to entering any work locations for this purpose(see Appendix B attached). Access may be restricted so as not to interfere with the normal operations of the department or with established safety or security requirements. Solicitation of membership and activities concerned with the internal management of the Union, such as collecting dues, campaigning for office, conducting elections and distributing literature, shall not interfere with the normal operations of the department or with established safety or security requirements. Section 5 Use of City Facilities The Union may, with the prior written approval of the City Manager or Fire Chief or his/her designated representative, be granted the use of City facilities for meeting of the Union provided space is available. All such requests shall be in writing and shall state the purposes of the meeting. Employees` assigned to the fire station where an Union meeting is being held will be allowed to attend the meeting provided they shall remain available to perform their duties necho have shall ausiness to mediately respond to any emergency call. Employees at the meeting but are assigned to other stations will be allowed to attend the meeting. Arrangements for this purpose will be the same as for Department business (i.e. Officers Conference, classes, etc.), provided, that the Union and the Duty ' Chief both determine the resulting coverage meets acceptable emergency response safety standards. The use of City equipment other than items normally used in the conduct of business meetings, such as desks, chairs, and blackboards is strictly prohibited, the presence of such equipment in City facilities notwithstanding. Section 6. Communications The Union may use an area not larger than 36 inches by 48 inches for an Union bulletin board in each fire station at a location designated by the Fire Chief and may have exclusive Union use of such bulletin board under the following conditions: No soliciting will be permitted in any station quarters or Fire Department building and no banners, cards or advertising of any description shall be permitted to be attached to the outside, or displayed inside, any station quarters or Fire Department building, without permission of the Duty Chief, except for those matters placed on a Union bulletin board relating to Union functions. No pornographic type films or pictures shall be allowed in the stations at any time. 3 Neither the City nor the Union condones the presence or use of any film, video, picture or publication that creates an environment which is considered to be sexual harassment by another individual. In the event an employee feels sexually harassed, they have recourse through the existing sexual harassment policy, Resolution #9511, Adopted by the City Council on April 8, 1981. At the time of posting the Union will provide the Fire Chief with a copy of all material posted. At the time of issuance, the Fire Chief will provide the President of the Union with a copy of all Fire Department Bulletins, Special Orders and General Orders. Section 7, Advance Notice Except in cases of emergency, reasonable advance written notice shall be given the Union of any . ordinance, rule, resolution or regulation directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the. City Council, any board or commission, or any department and the Union shall be given the opportunity to meet with City representatives prior to adoption. In cases of emergency when the City Council determines that an ordinance, rule, resolution or regulation must be adopted immediately without prior notice or meeting with the Union, the City shall provide such notice and opportunity to meet at the earliest practical time following the adoption of such ordinance, rule, resolution or regulation. A copy of any such ordinance, rule, resolution or regulation shall be provided to the Union, together with the notice required by this Section 7, whenever possible. Section 8. City Rights The rights of the City include, but are not limited to, the exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent departments, commissions and boards; set standards of service; determine the procedures and standards of selection for employment and promotion; direct its employees; take disciplinary action; relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; maintain' the efficiency of governmental operations; determine the methods, means and personnel by which government operations are to be conducted; determine the content of job classifications; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; and to exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology of performing its work. Section 9. No Discrimination There shall be no discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, sex, against any employee or applicant for employment by the Union or by the City; and to the extent prohibited by applicable state and federal•law,there shall be no discrimination because of age. There shall be no discrimination against any handicapped person solely because of such handicap unless that handicap prevents the person from meeting the minimum standards established. The City and the Union will not interfere with the rights of employees to join or refrain from joining the Union nor will they discriminate against any employee for legitimate Union activities. Section 10, Hours of Work 10.1 Work Schedule The regular workweek for employees assigned to full -time positions in other than Fire Suppression shall consist of an average of forty (40) hours and such hours to be worked between 7 :00 A.M. and 6 :00 P.M., Monday through Friday. The regular workweek for employees assigned to Fire Suppression shall be an average of fifty -six (56) hours. The work schedule shall consist of three (3) twenty -four (24) hour on -duty periods, commencing at 8:00 A.M., 4 within a nine (9) day cycle to be worked in accordance with the following chart: X ® 24 hour on -duty period 0 - 24 hour off -duty period X0X0X0000 Employees shall report at. 8:00 A.M. in appropriate uniform, clean shaven, and ready to work at the station to which they were last assigned, unless previously otherwise directed by the Fire Chief or designated representative. When directed to report to another station for the employee's next duty shift, the employee will be allowed to move the employee's equipment and gear between 7 :30 A.M. and 8 :00 A.M. of the employee's last working duty shift. Employees assigned to Fire Suppression shall conduct normal duties of the Fire Department during the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 10 :00 P.M. When making assignments after 5:00 P.M., the Duty Chief shall consider the physical condition of the employees based on the scheduled and emergency response workload which has occurred previously during the shift. Regular or scheduled activities shall be limited to eight (8) hours in any one shift. Work to be performed after 10 :00 P.M. shall be responses to emergencies and the work necessary to restore equipment to service after such equipment was used in emergency response, and repositioning of emergency equipment when circumstances exist which adversely affect the Department's usual ability to respond to an 'emergency or when unusual fire hazards exist which require monitoring by the Department. 10.2 Shift Trades Employees may trade shifts or portions thereof with qualified employees in increments of twenttyy-four (24) hours, fourteen (14) hours, or ten (10) hours, under the following conditions. An employee making such a trade shall enter that fact in the trade book and on the station calendar at the fire station to which he or she is assigned at the time he or she makes the agreement for the trade, and shall inform his or her company officer of the trade at that time. Such trade must be approved by the Duty Chief, who shall initial the trade book to show such approval. Employees may make trades with qualified employees of less than ten (10) hours under the following conditions. Requests for such trades shall be submitted to the Duty Chief for approval. Such trades shall be entered in the Station journals and will not count as part of the three (3) trades per month stated below and such trades of less than ten (10) hours shall require written permission from the Duty Chief. A request for a trade may be denied if the trade would interfere with operations of the Fire Department deemed important by the Fire Chief. No employee may have more than three (3) trades per month except with written permission from the Duty Chief. All trades between employees shall be repaid within twelve (12) months of the date of the trade unless the employee responsible for repaying the trade is assigned to a non - suppression assignment or suffers an illness or injurryy, in which case the twelve (12) month repayment period shall be extended by the period of such assignment, illness or injury. No trade shall involve the payment of monetary compensation from one employee to another. If an employee has arranged a shift trade with another employee and that employee fails to report for work on the day he or she was to work for the first employee, the second employee shall be required to make up that time in accordance with Fire Department rules and regulations and the second employee will not be compensated for the day he or she failed to report for work. If an employee has arranged for a shift trade with another employee and that employee fails to report for work due to an industrial injury on the day he or she was to work for the first employee, the first employee shall be required to make up that time in 5 accordance with Fire Department rules and regulations. All such time shall be made up in full shifts or, if the trade was for less than a full shift, in the same period of time as the trade. Employees accepting to work a trade are expected to be on duty the entire length of time agreed to. Employees unable to work the full amount of the trade time should not agree to work the trade. Employees on trade status assume the assignment of the employee he /she is replacing. Assignments will be made based on the seniority and qualifications of the ;employee assigned to the shift who requested the trade. (Status on eligibility list does not pass from the employee off on trade to the employee working the trade). For approved trades between ranks an employee trading up in rank will assume the assignment of the employee being replaced, provided another employee with the appropriate rank is not available for such assignment. An employee trading down in rank will assume the assignment of the employee being replaced, provided there is no available assignment at his/her attained rank. A Firefighter may trade with any other Firefighter, or with an Apparatus Operator subject to limitations stated within Apparatus Operator definitions, or with Lieutenants subject to the limitations stated within Lieutenant definitions. An Apparatus Operator may trade with any other Apparatus Operator, or with a Firefighter who has: three (3) years experience as an Alameda Fire Department Firefighter, and possession of a the appropriate driver's license, and previously placed on an Alameda Fire Department Apparatus Operator promotion list or has been certified to drive by the Training Officer. An Apparatus Operator may trade with a Lieutenant who has: possession of the appropriate drivers license, and previously placed on an Alameda Fire Department Apparatus Operator promotion list or has been certified to drive by the Training Officer, and be subject to limitations stated within Lieutenant definitions. A Lieutenant may trade with any other Lieutenant, or with any Firefighter or Apparatus Operator who has: five (5) years experience in the Alameda Fire Department, and, previously, placed on an Alameda Fire Department Lieutenant promotion list or be certified to act as Lieutenant in the Alameda Fire Department. A Lieutenant may also trade with Captains subject to the limitations stated within Captain definitions. A Captain may trade with any other Captain, or with any Lieutenants who have completed their probationary period, and certified to act as Captain. Section 11. Overtime Call Backs Acting Pay. Compensatory Time 11.1 Overtime Authorization All overtime must be authorized by the City Manager or designated representative in advance of being worked. No employee in the bargaining unit shall order any other employee in the bargaining unit to work overtime unless such overtime has been authorized by the City Manager or his or her designated representative. 11.2 Definition of Overtime Fifty -six J56) Hour Workweek Employees Overtime for employees assigned to a fifty -six (56) hour workweek is authorized time worked beyond the regular scheduled workweek in Section 10. Overtime shall be compensated at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's regular rate of pay in pay or compensatory time off, at the employee's option. Overtime shall not be paid when an employee's fifty -six (56) hour workweek is extended due to a shift trade. Forty (40) Hour Workweek Employees 6 Time worked by employees in other than Fire Suppression in eight (8) hours in one (1) day or forty (40) hours in one (1) week o not be deemed as overtime, provided that such employees average not more than forty 40 hours per week and that such scheduled hours are worked between 7 :00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. All other time worked by such employees in excess of an average of forty (40) hours a week shall be compensated in pay or compensatory time off, at the employee's option, at the rate of time and one -half (1-1/2). • Exemptions from Overtime For fifteen (15) minutes or less of overtime at the beginning or the end of any workday, the employee will receive no compensation if such overtime was for the purpose of providing relief for a fire company engaged in a response to an emergency at the end of its shift or was for the purpose of providing emergency service beyond the end of his/her shift. Any employee assigned to Fire Suppression` duties may leave his or her shift prior to its completion when he or she has arranged for early relief from an employee scheduled to come on duty at the start of the next shift and has received approval for such early relief from the 'immediate supervisor. Such early relief will be exempt from overtime. 11.3 Call Back and Minimum Overtime Requirements If an employee is, called back to work from an off -duty status, the employee, upon reporting, will receive a minimum of four (4) hours of work, or if four (4) hours of work is not furnished, a minimum of four (4) hours of pay at time and one -.half (1 -1/2), except that employees who are called to work before their regular starting time because of`eme,:gency conditions and work from the time they report until their regular starting times shall be compensated at the overtime rate only for the actual overtime so worked. If an employee. is held over beyond the end of his or her shift because of emergency conditions for more than fifteen (15) minutes, the employee will receive a minimum of two (2) hours of work, or if two (2) hours of work is not furnished, a minimum of two (2) hours of pay at time and one -half (1-1/2). 11.4 Overtime Call -in Procedures Requests for overtime shall be in accordance with established overtime procedures as outlined in G.O.B. 2 -41 (2/7/91). 11.5 Acting Procedures and Pay. Employees shall be paid hour per hour for time worked in a higher classification. One hour shall be the minimum qualifying time period. If an employee works in a higher classification for a fraction of an hour the time shall be rounded to the nearest hour. Current List: Employees may be assigned to temporarily perform the duties of a higher classification. when an eligibility list exists for permanent appointments to that classification, employees on the shift requiring the acting appointment who hold positions on such eligibility list shall act when requested in order of decreasing rank on the list except by mutual agreement between the employee and the Duty Chief. Ito Current List: When no eligibility list exists for a higher classification, acting appointments in that classification will first be offered to employees on the shift requiring the acting appointment who are qualified to perform such assignments and who have submitted to the Fire Chief the "Letter of Intent to Act" previously approved by the Union. In the event no eligibility list exists, such acting appointments will first be offered to those employees who were on the last eligibility list in order of decreasing rank on that list. After all of those persons have been offered acting appointments, acting appointments shall then be offered in 7 order of decreasing departmental seniority to the remaining employees on the shift requiring the acting appointment who have submitted letters of intent to act in that classification. Employees who have passed an examination for permanent appointment to a classification shall 'automatically be deemed qualified for acting appointments in that classification. Other employees who have submitted letters of intent to act in that classification shall be evaluated by the Duty. Chiefs and the administrative staff and may be denied acting assignments if they are not qualified to perform the duties of such assignments. In order to qualify for acting appointments to the classification of Apparatus Operator, an employee must have successfully completed the driving and performance tests for that classification. After an employee has acted for three (3) shifts in a higher classification, he or she shall be rotated to the bottom of the list of persons eligible for acting appointments to that classification. Employees have the opportunity to decline acting assignments; provided, however, when departmental needs dictate, the Duty Chief and the administrative staff will assign such employees or other fire safety employees to serve as actors. Depending upon departmental needs, those employees determined to be qualified to act, may be divided as evenly as possible and practical on the three (3) shifts. However, department effectiveness and efficiency shall be instrumental in the decisions affecting movements of acting assignments, Acting Pay An employee who has been assigned and has successfully performed the duties of a higher classification for three (3) shifts or the equivalent number of hours shall thereafter receive the rate of pay attached to such classification for all of the time he or she is assigned to perform such .duties. Any employee who is assigned to act in a higher classification for more than fifty percent (50 %) of his or her shifts in a fiscal year shall be --paid for vacation leave taken in that fiscal year at one- half (1/2) the salary attached to such higher classification and one -half (1/2) of the employee's regular rate of pay. Any employee who is assigned to act in a higher classification for eighty percent (80 %) or more of his or her shifts in a fiscal year shall receive the salary attached to such, higher classification for vacation and sick leave taken in that fiscal year and for his or her holiday pay. • In the event an employee acts in more than one (1) higher classification and the combined service in those higher classifications is more than fifty percent (50 %) of his or her shifts in a fiscal year, the employee shall be paid for one -half (1/2) of the vacation leave taken in that fiscal, year at a salary prorated from the salaries of such higher classifications in proportion to the employee's acting time in each such classification. In the event an employee's combined service in more than one (1) higher classification is eighty percent (80 %) or more of his or her shifts in a fiscal year, the salary for all vacation, sick leave and holiday pay shall be computed in the same manner. To be eligible for acting pay compensation, the employee so acting shall submit their acting pay request at the end of the three shift cycle in which the employee acted. 11.6 Compensatory Time Employees shall be entitled to accrue maximum of one hundred forty -four (144) seventy -two (72) hours of compensatory Upon an employee's separation from City legal obligation it has toward the 8 compensatory time off up to a hours, but may take no more than time off in any one (1) month. service, the City will meet any employee regarding pay off of compensatory time. Compensatory time will be requested by an employee in accordance to G.O.B. 2 -39 (2/9/90). Section 12. Salaries 12.1 Mates of Pay January 1, 1993 Monthly Captain $4470 4699 Lieutenant 4366 Apparatus Operator 4113 Fire Fighter 2669 2853 3055 3245 3518 3694 3882 Effective January 1, 1994, the monthly salary ranges specified above will be adjusted by the amount of the change as measured by the difference in the November 1992 through November 1993 Consumer Price Index (SF - Bay Area 1982 -84 -100) In no event will any increase in the index result in an adjustment of more than Four Percent (4.00 %) to the above; monthly salary ranges. The City and the Union met and conferred in good faith regarding the providing of the ambulance service by the employees in the bargaining unit, and reached agreement that during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding the compensation will be as provided in Section 25.6 of this Memorandum of Understanding. In addition to the regular monthly salary, employees in the classifications of Fire Captain, Fire Lieutenant or Fire Apparatus Operator, who maybe assigned on regular assignment to the Fire Prevention Bureau, will receive a salary differential of ten percent (10 %) per month while so assigned. Employees in the classification of Firefighter will receive a salary differential of eleven percent (11 %) per month while so assigned. A Fire Captain assigned to either EMS Director position or to the Training Division will receive a salary differential of ten percent (10 %) per month while so assigned. When making training, EMS Director or fire prevention assignments, the Fire Chief will give consideration to-any request from employees for such assignments and among the items considered by the Fire Chief will be an employee's qualifications and seniority. Whenever an assignment to a position in fire training, EMS Director or fire prevention is to be made, the Fire Department shall post a notice in all fire stations informing all qualified employees that they may request consideration for such assignment. At the time of considering the volunteers for an assignment, the Fire Chief will indicate the duration of the assignment. No employee may be required to accept training, EMS Director or fire prevention assignment for a duration of more than two (2) years. During the above assignments an employee may be temporarily displaced from such assignment and replaced by an employee on a limited duty assignment made in accordance with Section 25.3 of this Memorandum' of Understanding. At the end of such limited duty assignment the displaced employee shall be provided the option of completing the remainder of the displaced employee's assignment, which may be extended by the length of such limited duty assignment. The Fire Department retains the authority to remove employees who are not performing at acceptable levels in the above assignments. 12 2 Starting Rate For the classification of Firefighter, the entrance salary for a new employee entering City service shall be the minimum salary for that classification, provided, however, that when circumstances warrant, the City Manager may approve an entrance salary which is more than the minimum salary. If a new employee has both EMT 1 -A and Firefighter 1 certificate, Salary Range 9 the Fire Chief will recommend to the City Manager that the employee be hired at the third step. The City Manager's decision shall be final. For all other classifications within the bargaining unit, employees shall receive the minimum salary for such classifications upon initial appointment thereto, unless the salary attached to such initial step is not five percent (5 %) or more above the salary of an employee prior to such appointment, in which event the employee will receive the salary attached to the lowest step which provides a salary increase of at least five percent (5 %). Acting pay under Section 11.4 of the Memorandum of Understanding shall be at the step which an employee would receive upon initial appointment to the higher classification to which the employee has been temporarily assigned. 12.3 Step Increases The step plan of each salary range shall be applied and interpreted as follows for permanent and probationary ` employees: The first step shall be the minimum rate and shall normally be the hiring rate for the class. The second step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months of paid status at the first step. The third step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months of paid status at the second step. The fourth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months of paid status at the third step The fifth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the fourth step. The sixth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the fifth step. The seventh step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the sixth step. Raises to the next step shall_be.automatic unless the employee's service has not been satisfactory in which event a raise may be delayed for not more than six (6) months with the approval of the City Manager. 12.4 Conversion Rate Any yearly, monthly, per diem, or hourly rate of pay may be converted into any equivalent rate of pay or to any other time basis when, in the judgement of the City Manager, such a conversion is advisable.. In determining equivalent amounts on different time bases, the Finance Director, subject to the approval of the City Manager, shall provide tables' or regulations for the calculation of payment for service of less than full time, and for use in converting monthly salaries to hourly rates. The hourly rate for fifty -six (56) hour workweek employees is calculated by multiplying the employee's base monthly pay rate by twelve (12) and dividing that number by 2912. The hourly rate for forty (40) hour workweek employees is calculated by multiplying the employee's base monthly pay rate by twelve (12) and dividing that number by 2080. Section 13. Health and Welfare 13.1' Flexible Benefit Plan The City has contracted with the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) for the purpose of providing medical insurance benefits for employees covered by this Memorandum of Understanding, eligible retired employees and eligible survivors of retired employees. Eligibility of retired employees and survivors of retired employees to participate in this program shall be in accordance with regulations promulgated by PERS 10 and subject to the provisions of Section 4 (a) and (b) of the Agreement of May 31, 1991 between the City and the "members of the 1082 Pension System *; transferring the 1082 pension system to PERS. The City has established a Flexible Benefits Account for each full -time regular employee who is eligible to enroll in one of the PERS medical insurance plans offered by the City. The city will contribute Sixteen Dollars ($16.00) per month per current eligible employee who subscribes for coverage in one of the PERS medical insurance ,plans offered by the City. In the event PERS requires a minimum employer payment in excess of $16.00 per month, the City shall pay such additional amounts only during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding. The City shall pay One Dollar ($1.00) on behalf of each eligible retired employee or eligible survivor of a retired employee, not covered under 1082 Agreement, who subscribes for coverage. The City shall make the following contributions per month per eligible employee toward the Flexible Benefits Plan: Effective 1/1/93 Employee $165.65 Employee and one dependent 338.72 Employee and two or more dependents 446.63 The balance of the cost incurred to provide medical care benefits for the employee and eligible dependents shall be paid by the employee, however that should there be any increases in the PERS Kaiser premium rates, the City shall adjust the above rates in each category by eighty -five percent (85 %) of such increases. For the purpose of this Section, a dependent is defined as a person who satisfies the definition of dependent in the PERS medical insurance plan in which the employee is enrolled. Such dependents must also be enrolled in and covered by the plan. In the event the above listed amounts plus the City payment towards medical insurance premiums specified in paragraph 2 above are insufficient to pay 100% of the premiums required of employees enrolled in any one of the PEPS medical insurance plans listed below, the City shall make a payroll deduction from the employee's pay to cover the difference in cost. Each employee shall notify the Personnel Director in writing on a form provided, on or before the last day of the PERS open enrollment month each year as to how the monies in his/her Flexible Benefit Account are to be expended• during the twelve (12) month period beginning the first day of each PERS Benefit year. Thereafter, no change to designations so made will be allowed until the following year unless a qualified reason, occurs. Each employee shall be responsible for providing immediate written notification to the Personnel Director of any change to the number of his /her dependents which affects the 'amount of the City payment to the Flexible Benefits Account. An employee, who by reason of failing to report a change in dependents, receives a City payment greater than the amount to which he /she is entitled shall be liable for refunding the excess amounts received via a reduction in the amount paid to his/her Flexible Benefits Account. Changes to flexible benefit payments required because of a change in an employee's number of dependents shall take effect at the start of the first pay period in the month next following the month in which advice from the employee is received by the Personnel Director. No retroactive increases to the City's payments shall be allowed. 13.2 Dental 11 The City shall make the necessary contributions per month per eligible employee toward the City's Flexible Benefits to provide the dental plan to the employee and eligible dependents. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees. 13.3 Life Insurance The City shall make the necessary contributions per month per eligible employee toward the City's Flexible Benefits to provide each employee with a Fifteen Thousand Dollar ($15,000.00) life insurance program. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees. 13.4 Optional Life Insurance The City shall provide each employee with the opportunity to purchase, at their own cost, additional life insurance up to, the maximum amount provided by and subject to the conditions of the carrier. 13.5 Employee Assistance Program The City shall ''continue to provide for all employees an employee assistance program. The cost of such program shall continue to be paid by the City only during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding. Section 14. Retirement Plan The parties agree to be bound by the Agreement entered into on May 31, 1990, and executed by the City Manager and the President of the Union and attached to this Memorandum of Understanding as Appendix E. Section 15, Uniform Allowance Effective January 1, 1993, the annual uniform allowance is Five Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($550.00) for classifications covered by this Memorandum of Understanding and will be paid in quarterly installments of One Hundred Thirty -seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($137.50) for replacing and maintaining uniforms (including pants and shoes). Section 16 Holidays Any employee regularly assigned and working a fifty -six (56) hour work schedule, will be paid additional compensation for holidays at the rate of 1/20.004 of their regular monthly. salaries, provided, however, that the actual payment for such holidays shall be made once per month irrespective of the number of holidays or lack of holidays occurring within a month. Actual payment for such holidays is to be on a hi-monthly basis. Any employee regularly assigned and working a forty (40) hour work schedule will celebrate the same holidays celebrated by the City, but shall not receive any extra compensation in addition to the employee's regular monthly salary. For the purpose of this paragraph, the thirteen (13) holidays are New Years Day, Martin Luther King's Birthday, Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Day after Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and two (2) Floating Holidays each calendar year, to be scheduled by mutual agreement between the employee and the Department Head or designated representative. The employees may take the two (2) floating holidays only after completion of twelve (12) months service with the City. Section 17. Vacation 17.1 Vacation Scheduling Vacation selection shall be made in order of decreasing departmental seniority and shall take place by rounds as follows. In the first round each employee may pick from three (3) to all of the employee's vacation days so long as they are consecutive and do not split a shift cycle. In the second round each employee may pick any number of shifts in groups of three (3) at any time during the year, up to the amount of the employee's accumulated vacation leave. Vacation selection shall continue in this 12 manner until all employees have indicated they do not wish to make any more selections. The vacation selection process shall be commenced no later than September 15 and completed no later than December 15 for the succeeding calendar year. Forty (40) hour a week personnel shall select their vacation in the same time period by seniority in department for each Division. The Fire Chief shall determine the number of forty (40) hour employees that may be off at any one time based on department needs. Up to three (3) employees assigned to fire suppression duties may be scheduled for vacation leave on any one (1) day, provided, however, that no more than one (1) officer may be scheduled for leave each day. 17.2 Vacation Benefits Every employee who oh the most recent anniversary date of his or her employment shall have been in the service of the City for a period of one (1) year or more and shall have been in a pay status a minimum of 1800 straight time hours (forty (40) hour workweek) or 2500 straight -time hours (fifty -six (56) hour workweek) within the twelve (12) month period immediately preceding such anniversary date, shall be entitled to a vacation as follows: Forty (40) Hour Workweek Employees Ten (10) working days of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of one (1) year or more but less than five (5) years prior to such anniversary date. Fifteen (15) working days' vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for .a period of five (5) years or more but less than fifteen (15) years prior to such anniversary date. Twenty (20) working' days vacation with pay if he or shall have been in the service of the City for a period of fifteen (15) years but less than twenty (20) years prior to such anniversary date. Twenty -one (21) working days' vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of twenty (20) years or more but less than twenty -two (22) years prior to such anniversary date. Twenty -two (22) working days' vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of twenty -two (22) years or more but less than twenty -three (23) years prior to such anniversary date. Twenty -three (23) working days' vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of twenty -three (23) years or more but less than twenty-four (24) years prior to such anniversary date. Twenty -four (24) working days' vacation with pay 'if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of twenty -four (24) years or more but less than twenty -five (25) years prior to such anniversary date. Twenty -five (25) working days' vacation, with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of twenty -five (25) years or more prior to such anniversary date. Fifty -six (56) Hour Workweek Employees Six (6) shifts of vacation with pay .if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of one (1) year or more but less than six (6) years prior to such anniversary' date. Nine (9) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of six (6) years or more but less than sixteen (16) years prior to such anniversary date. Twelve (12) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of sixteen (16) years or more. 13 17.3 Vacation Accumulation No employee may accumulate more than ten (10) working days or six (6) shifts, as the case may be, of vacation at any one time in addition to the employee's regular vacation entitlement. 17.4 Vacation Pay at Termination Employees who leave City employment after completing one (1) year of service with the City shall be paid for all of the vacation leave credited to their account at the time of such termination of employment plus a pro rata share of the vacation the employee would have earned for the current year. 17.5 Vacation Paycheck The City agrees to deposit an employee's paycheck in his or her bank account if authorized by such employee, and if such employee is out of town on vacation on payday. The deposit of an employee's paycheck while an employee is on vacation shall be in accordance with procedures developed by the City Finance Director. Section 18. Sick Leave 18.1 Benefits Effective July 2, 1981 regular and probationary employees shall accrue sick leave at the rate of one (1) working day per month, provided they have been in a pay status one hundred sixty (160)- straight-time hours that month for forty (40) hour workweek employees and two hundred twenty -four (224) straight -time hours for fifty -six (56) hour workweek employees. Sick leave usage shall not be considered as a privilege which an employee may use at his or her discretion, but shall be allowed, only in case if necessity of actual sickness or disability. A working day is eight (8) hours for employees who work a forty (40) hour workweek and twelve (12) hours for employees who are assigned to a fifty -six (56) hour workweek. Records of sick leave usage shall be kept on the basis of hours used. In no event shall sick leave be converted into a cash bonus. Sick leave may not be used before it is earned or during any other City compensated time off provision except as provided for in G.O.B. 2 -23. Employees hired prior to July 2, 1981 shall accrue additional sick leave as specified in Appendix A of this document. 18.2 Notification Requirement An`empioyee reporting off duty for sickness or injury shall notify his or her immediate supervisor of his or her impending absence no later than one (1) hour prior to the time he or she is scheduled to report for work. Failure to comply with this requirement may be cause for disciplinary action. ' Re.ortin: Off -Du For Sickness Or In An employee reporting an absence shall notify Central Fire Dispatch, at Central Communications Center. Notice of impending absence shall be no later than one (1) hour prior to the time scheduled to work. The employee shall state the nature of sickness or injury. The dispatcher at Center shall log this information. An officer at Station I shall call Central between 0700 to 0800 hours for any change(s) or status of employees available for duty during the previous twenty -four (24) hours. Upon receipt of notification of an absence, an officer at Station I shall pass this information to the employee's officer, the Duty Chief and the Chief's office, when applicable. Reporting Back To Duty From Sickness Or IniurY 14 Reporting back from absences of sickness and injury shall follow the above guidelines. Reporting Of Other Absence Other leaves of absence, such as illness in the immediate family, birth of a child to the spouse of an employee, funeral leave, and critical illness where death appears imminent in the immediate family, shall also be reported to Central, who will relay the information to an officer at Station I. Reporting Of Medical Appointments. Dental Appointments. Jury Duty And Military Leave When an employee schedules a medical or dental appointment on duty or when notified or required to serve on jury duty or military leave, the employee shall report the expected absence on an Advance Notification of Absence From Duty Form. Station I shall maintain a log of reporting off and back from all absences and immediately forward such information to the Duty Chief. 18 3 Doctor's Certificate or Other Proof At the discretion of the employee's supervisor, a personal affidavit may be required for any period of absence for which sick leave is claimed; however, when absence is for more than five (5) consecutive workdays or three (3) consecutive shifts, the employee shall file a physician's certificate with the Department Head stating the cause of the absence and certifying that such employee is not able to perform the duties of the employee's employment. 18.4 Illness in the Immediate Family An employee may use up to twenty -four (24) hours of accrued any twelve (12) consecutive month period for illness in family. For the purpose of this provision, immediate family child or dependent'livin4 within the employee's household. request, the employee will provide satisfactory evidence justifying such absence. sick leave in the immediate means spouse, At the City's of the facts 18.5 Sick Leave Durine Probationary Period No sick leave shall be granted during the first six (6) months of employment with the City. However, after six (6) months of employment with the City, sick leave accumulation with pay shall be allowed for, time worked in the probationary status, provided the one hundred sixty (160) (for the forty hour workweek employees) or two hundred twenty -four (224) (for the fifty -six hour workweek employees) straight -time hours per month pay status requirement has been met. 18.6 Medical and /or Dental Appointment Leave - During the term of the Memorandum of Understanding the Fire Department will allow employees time off without loss of pay for medical and/or dental appointments, when such appointments cannot be scheduled on the employee's day off without undue delay or for other good cause. The employee will be required to have the doctor or dentist attest to the fact that the appointment could not have been made on the employees day off. The employee will have his/her doctor or dentist sign a form provided by the Fire Chief (see appendix D attached). The form will be picked up by the employee prior to the appointment and returned by the employee upon returning to- work. Section 19. Leave of Absence 19.1 Leave Without Pay The City Manager may grant regular employees a leave of absence without pay. No leave shall be granted except upon written request of the employee. Such requests shall be submitted to the City Manager. Such leaves shall normally be granted to permit the employee to engage in activities that will increase his or her value to the City upon return, or because of sickness, injury or personal hardship. Employees may not be 15 granted a leave of absence until all accrued vacation or compensatory time is taken. Failure on the part of an employee on leave to report promptly at its expiration shall result in dismissal of the employee. Vacation and sick leave credits shall not accrue to an employee on leave of absence. The decision of the City Manager on granting or refusing to grant a leave of absence or extension thereof shall be final and conclusive and shall not be subject to the grievance procedure of this Memorandum of Understanding.` 19.2 Jury Duty An employee summoned to jury duty shall inform his or her Duty Chief of that fact and shall be granted leave from work with full pay for those hours during which the employee is required to be at court and to travel to and from court.` 19.3 Military Leaves of Absence The provisions of the Military and Veterans Code of the State of California and all other applicable Federal & State statutory and case law shall govern military leave of City employees. 19.4 Maternity Leave A. Employees shall be granted a leave for pregnancy without pay or benefits as follows: Such employees may continue their employment during pregnancy if the, employee's doctor certifies in writing that the employee is capable of continuing such employment without danger to herself. Prior to leaving, the employee shall advise the City Manager in writing that she will wish to return to work after the birth of her child, and she must thereafter return ready and able to work within a period of four (4) months from the date of birth, with a doctor's certificate stating that she is capable of resuming her normal full -time employment. Employees who neglect or who find it impossible to comply with the foregoing shall be deemed to have voluntarily terminated` their employment with the City. Any employee who due to their pregnancy, suffers complications prior to being granted maternity leave accumulated sick leave for such disability. The foregoing provision, Maternity Leave, shall be subject to applicable federal and state law. B. The City of Alameda agrees to the following procedure regarding the birth of a child to the spouse of an employee covered by the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding: 1. If the child is born during the employee's working shift, the employee may be granted a leave of absence with full pay and benefits by the Duty Chief for the remainder of the shift. 2. If the child is born prior to an employee's working shift and conditions surrounding the child;s birth warrant granting the employee a leave of absence,'the employee shall contact the Duty Chief, who shall review the circumstances surrounding the child's birth and may grant such leave. 3. If the child's birth is expected, but delayed, during the employee's working shift and the employee is absent from work, the employee shall contact the Duty Chief, explain the circumstances and the Duty Chief shall determine whether the employee should or should not return to duty. 4. Twenty -four (24) hours shall be the total maximum time allowable for a leave of absence during the period surrounding the birth of an employee's child. 19.5 Industrial Disability Leave Employees who suffer any disability arising out of and in the course of their employment, as defined by the Workers' Compensation Laws of the disabling shall use 16 State of California, shall be entitled to disability leave in accordance with the Workers' Compensation Laws of the State of California. 19 6 Funeral Leave In the event of a death in the immediate family of an employee who has one (1) or more years of uninterrupted service with the City, the employee shall, upon request, be granted such time off with pay as is necessary to make arrangements for the funeral and attend same not to exceed forty -eight (48)hours for fifty -six (56) hour workweek employees and twenty -four (24) hours for forty (40) hour workweek employees. This provision does not apply if the death occurs during the employee's paid vacation or while the employee is on leave of absence, layoff, or sick leave. For the purposes of this provision, the immediate family shall be restricted to father, mother, sister, brother, spouse, child, mother -in -law, father -in -law, _grandparents and grandchildren. At the request of the .City, the employee will furnish a death certificate and proof of relationship. Funeral leave applies only in instances_ in which the employee attends the funeral or is required to make funeral arrangements, but is not applicable for other purposes such as settling the estate of the deceased. 19.7 Imminent Death in Family During the term of the Memorandum. of Understanding employees may be granted up to forty -eight (48) hours' use of sick leave for employees assigned to Fire Suppression and twenty -four (24) hours' use of sick leave for other employees in the event of a critical illness where death, appears imminent in the immediate family. The immediate family shall be defined as in Section 19.6 above. If the employee receives notice while on duty of a critical illness where death appears imminent in the immediate family, that employee shall be allowed off duty after giving, notice to his or her supervisor of such critical illness. Leave granted pursuant to the above shall be charged to an employee's accumulated sick leave. The City may request from the employee a physician's statement verifying the critical illness prior to payment of sick leave. Section 20. Probationary Period All original and promotional appointments shall be subject to a probationary period. The probationary period shall be regarded as a part of the testing process and shall be utilized for closely observing the employee's work for securing the most effective adjustment of a new employee to his position and for rejecting any probationary employee whose performance does not meet the required standards of work. The probationary period for a Firefighter is eighteen (18) months.' The probationary period for an Apparatus Operator, Lieutenant or Captain is six (6) months. During the probationary period, an employee may be rejected at any time by the City Manager without cause and without the right of appeal unless otherwise required by law. Any employee rejected during the probationary period following a promotional appointment shall be reinstated to the position from which he was promoted, unless he is discharged. Section 21. Layoff and Reemployment 21.1 Layoff Procedure Layoffs shall be made Department seniority, regardless of rank. When a promotional reduction is made in the Fire Department, demotions shall be made in the inverse order of seniority in classification. An employee being demoted shall be placed in the classification he or she in the inverse order o 17 last held prior to the classification from which he or she is being demoted. When an employee is demoted, their seniority shall be based on the date they originally achieved that classification. 21.2 Reemployment nights The names of employees demoted or laid off shall be placed on Reemployment Eligibility Lists for the classifications from which they were demoted or laid off. The rank order on such lists shall be in inverse order of seniority in classification for promotional classifications and inverse order of departmental seniority for the classification of Firefighter. Such reemployment lists shall take precedence over all other eligibility lists for appointment to classifications in the bargaining unit. An employee who has been laid off from City service must take a physical examination administered by a physician selected by the City as a condition of reemployment. The name of any employee laid off shall continue on the appropriate Reemployment Eligibility List for a period of three (3) years after it is placed thereon. The names of any eligible employees on a Reemployment Eligibility List shall be automatically removed from said list at the expiration of the appropriate period. Service with the City Fire Department for an employee in a classification covered by this Memorandum of Understanding shall be terminated by discharge, resignation, or twenty -four (24) consecutive months of unemployment with the City Fire Department (thirty -six (36) months of unemployment in the case of employees laid off who had five (5) or wore years° of employment with the City Fire Department). 21.3 Accumulation of Benefits An ` employee who is laid off shall not accrue nor be eligible for any benefits provided by the City to the employees in the bargaining unit, including but not limited to vacation, sick leave, holidays, medical and dental insurance, life insurance, retirement contributions, and uniform allowance; provided, however, that the employee shall be credited with seniority as though he or she had remained in City service. Section 22, Discharge or Discipline Right of Discharze or Discipline The City shall have, the right to discharge or discipline any employee for employment related dishonesty, insubordination, being under the influence of alcohol or drugs while on duty, incompetence, willful negligence, failure to perform work as required or to observe the Department's safety rules and the Department °s rules and regulations which must be conspicuously posted and not in derogation of the Memorandum of Understanding, or for engaging in strikes, individual or group slowdowns or work stoppages, or for violating or ordering the violation of the Memorandum of Understanding. Section 23. Personnel Files An employee or his or her representative, on presentation of written authorization from the employee, shall have access to the employee's personnel file on request. The City shall furnish the employee copies of all performance evaluation reports and letters of reprimand or warning prior to placement of such documents into the employee's personnel file. The employee may be required to acknowledge the receipt of any document entered into his or her personnel file. An employee who disagrees with the contents of a performance evaluation report, letter of reprimand or warning which is placed in the employee's personnel file may submit a written response thereto and have such response placed in the employee's personnel file. Letters of Commendation related to the Fire Department that have been reviewed and approved for forwarding by the Fire Chief, and certificates 18 of achievement related to the Fire Department shall be placed in the employee's personnel file upon the employee's request. Section 24. Outside Employment No full -time employee shall engage in employment that constitutes a conflict of interest for the employee or the City. No employee shall regular in outside employment during his/h er gguu lar working hours. 'No uniform, emblem, badge or other employee identification shall be worn by . All any person while in for the o roymernissffion someone to engage intoutside em the oyment requests by the employee f p m shall be made on a form provided by the City. No employee shall accept or . continue employment' other than occasional work from other than the City of Alameda without the approval of the City Manager, which may be withheld if such employment constitutes a conflict of interest for the employee or the City or which would interfere with the employee's ability to perform his or her City job. Section 25. Miscellaneous 25.1 Emergency Technician 1 -A Certificate ive An employee who has a valid and current EMT 1- ='month is t willlreceive an additional Ninety -Eight Dollars_ ($98.00) per responsibility of the employee to meet any certification and recertification Trequirements e ec related the oordinates the recertification certificate. process. 25.2 Grooming Employees shall present a neat and orderly appearance and the bulk or length of hair shall not interfere with the proper wearing of any department headgear or respiratory p ot 25.3 Limited Duty for Disabled Employees The following are the guidelines which are to be utilized in determining whether an employee shall be given a limited duty assignment. must have incurred a job- related injury or illness (1) The employee herch incapacitates disability billty her from e confirmedginwriting by duties a physician her job.. Such disability licensed to practice medicine in the State of California. (2) There must be a written statement from a physician licensed to to practice medicine in the State of California,sreleasingmthe employeetto perform specific functions. The p y specifics• or the employee's limitations in performing work and how long it is anticipated these limitations are expected 'to continue. (3) The City may require a second physical examination to verify the information in the physician's statement. (4) The assignments will be at the discretion of the Fire Chief, with due regard to the needs of the service and the condition of the employee, and subject to the rights of the employee under the Workers' Compensation Act therapy, physician's visits, or other treatment prescribed escribed by the attending physician shall be without the loss of compensation only for the period of time required by applicable state law or usage of sick leave when the disability is job related. (6) The employee should be capable of working an average of a forty (40) hour workweek as described in Section 10.1. Time spent at rehabilitation, therapy, physician's visits, or other treatment prescribed by the 19 attending physician may be counted as a part of the forty (40) hour workweek. 25.4 Promotions (1) Promotional Exams For the purposes of promotional exams, the Personnel Department will develop questions from established job descriptions that will be pertinent to the promotional position tested. The Personnel Department will update and evaluate job descriptions for each promotional classification listed in Section 1.1. The Personnel Department will complete this task on or about August 1, 1993 At such time as the task is completed, the Fire Chief and the President of the Union will meet to review the documents. (2) Date of Examinations The City shall publish a target date for the next announcement of promotional examination in the Fire Department within ninety (90) days of the date of expiration of the eligibility list for such classification. The promotional exam shall be completed as soon after the expiration of the eligibility list for such classification as the workload of the Personnel Department permits. (3) Eligibility to Participate in Promotional Exam An employee shall have a minimum of three (3) years' service as a Firefighter in the Alameda Fire Department to be able to take the Apparatus Operator's Exam. An employee shall have a minimum of five (5) years' service with the Alameda Fire Department in any combination of Firefighter time and Apparatus Operator time to be able to take the Fire Lieutenant exam. An employee shall have a minimum of two (2) years' service as a Fire Lieutenant in the Alameda Fire Department to be able to take the Fire Captain exam. The above mentioned time in service must be completed by the final filing date on the job announcement for that exam. (4) Examination Procedures Each qualified employee desiring to obtain a promotion to a higher classification shall be afforded an opportunity to submit an application to take an examination for appointment to such higher classification. No application shall be considered as an agreement between the City and applicant which is inconsistent with any agreement between the City and the Union. (5) Right to Take Entire Examination All employees who possess the minimum requirements for promotion to a higher classification and apply to take an examination for such promotion shall be allowed to complete all parts or portions of such examination, other than the structured oral interview with the Fire Chief, except those employees who fail the driving and/or performance portions of the Apparatus Operators examination. (6) Administration With the exception of the structured oral interview with the Fire Chief and the driving test for the classification of Apparatus Operation, promotional examinations shall be administered entirely by persons who are not members of the Alameda Fire Department. (7) Credit for Acting Time Acting time spent by an employee in an acting appointment to a higher classification that is contiguous and unbroken in time to that employee's permanent appointment to that higher classification, shall be credited toward maximum time in rank of that higher classification to qualify for the next higher classification. 20 (8) Passing Grades The minimum passing grades on the final testing phase for all Fire Department promotional examinations shall be established and announced prior to the commencement of such examinations. (9) Process Review At the conclusion of the oral exam process the President of the Union will be afforded an opportunity to meet with the oral board to review the process. Within one (1) month of the conclusion of the promotional exam two (2) members of the Personnel Department will meet with two (2) representatives of the Union and one (1) representative of Fire Administration to review the examination. 25.5 Educational Incentive See Appendix C attached 25.6 Ambulance Differential Two (2) employees assigned to each designated ambulance will each receive Twenty- nine Dollars and Forty Cents ($29.40) per twenty -four (24) hour shift. 25.7 Drivers License All personnel currently licensed with a Class B Firefighters' exemption or Glass B license shall maintain the firefighters' exemption as a minimum certification. Additionally, all employees hired after the effective date of this M.O.U. shall be certified to a minimum of the Firefighters exemption license, by the end of probation. All licensing to be per California State Vehicle Code requirements: Possession of a Class B, or other appropriate license, does not in of itself qualify an employee to perform duties other than moving the apparatus, unless he or she has been certified for such additional duties by examination. The City agrees to provide all training as required on duty and to pay all costs associated with training and licensing. 25.8 Drug Testing The parties met and conferred and established an Alcohol and Drug Testing Procedure and said understanding is recorded in a side letter dated March 2, 1993 . 25.9 Bilingual Pay Policy In accordance with the City's Bilingual Pay Policy, the Fire Department will designate the languages to which the pay will apply and assign employees accordingly. The Bilingual Pay differential is Forty -two Dollars ($42.00) per month. The Bilingual Policy is attached as Appendix F. 25.10 EMS Committee A committee consisting of one (1) management representative, one (1) Union representative, the EMS Director and the City Risk Manager shall be established. This Committee shall meet at least once per month to review, establish and implement EMS protocols and procedures per City and County requirements, and to make recommendations for improvements to the system. 25.11 Residency All employees hired after the effective date of this Memorandum of Understanding must reside within a 50 minute response distance by the 21 completion of probation. The residency map is kept in the Fire Chief's office. 25.12 Station Assignment Preference On a one time, non-precedent setting basis between August 1 and August 31, of 1993, all three shift line-up logs will be circulated by the Duty Chief, upon which employees may express their preference for shift, station, and company assignments. Department policy for such preferences will take into consideration department needs, which include the required number of positions, ranks, acting lists, ambulance staffing, certified EMTs, and Class B or Firefighter Class B drivers' licenses. Each apparatus will be staffed with at least two (2) current certified EMTs and two (2) Class B or Firefighter Class B drivers license holders within the first three (3) assignments on each fire apparatus. Preference will be indicated for shift, station and company assignments in order of decreasing department seniority. Every August in succeeding years, if vacancies have occurred during the year which make a transfer possible between shifts, stations, or companies, qualified employees in the appropriate classifications shall be given the opportunity to express their preference for open shift, station, or company assignments. The same factors listed in paragraph two (2) will be taken into consideration. The Chief will attempt to make station assignments in accordance with eh employee's preference, except when the Chief determines that other needs or criteria requires a different assignment. Any employee who wishes to discuss with the Chief, the station/shift that he/she was assigned to, may do so. 25.13 Paramedic Program At such time as the City authorizes implementation of a Paramedic Program, the Fire Chief will meet and confer with the Union regarding the impact of such iiplementation." 25.14 CARE/Volunteer Program The City and the Union agree to the implementation of the CARE/Volunteer Program in the Fire Department as authorized by the City Council on February 16, 1993. . Section 26. Grievance Procedure Definition of a Grievance A grievance is any dispute which involves the interpretation or application of any provision of this Memorandum of Understanding. 26.1 Initial Discussion Any employee or Union representative may discuss a grievance with the Fire Chief or with such subordinate management official as the Fire Chief may designate. 26.2 Referral to City Manager If the grievance is not resolved within the Department, the employee or Union representative may notify the City Manager in writing that a grievance exists. Such notifications shall state the particulars of the grievance and, if possible, the nature of the determination which is desired. A grievance which has been heard and investigated pursuant to this Section and Section 26.1 and which remains unresolved thirty (30) calendar days after it has been submitted in writing may be referred to the Adjustment Board. 26.3 Adjustment Board 22 In the event the Union and the City are unable to reach a mutually satisfactory accord on any grievance (as the term "grievance" is hereinabove defined) which arises and is presented during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding, such grievance shall be submitted to an Adjustment Board comprised of three (3) employee representatives and three (3) representatives of the City. The Union shall be an indispensable party to any grievance which is submitted to the Adjustment Board. If an Adjustment Board is unable to arrive at a majority decision, either the Union or the City may request that the grievance be referred to the City Manager. The Union or the City may, alternatively, refer the grievance to arbitration. No Adjustment Board or Arbitrator shall entertain, hear or decide any dispute involving a position over which a recognized employee organization has jurisdiction unless such dispute falls within the definition of a grievance as hereinabove set forth in paragraph (1) of this Section. Proposals to add to or change this Memorandum of Understanding or written agreements or addenda supplementary hereto shall not be grievable and no proposal to modify, amend or terminate this Memorandum of Understanding, may be referred for grievance under this Section; and no Adjustment, Board or Arbitrator shall have the power to amend or modify this Memorandum of Understanding or written agreements or addenda supplementary hereto or to establish any new terms or conditions of employment. No changes in the Memorandum of Understanding of interpretations thereof will be recognized unless agreed to by the City Manager and the Union. 26.4 Arbitration If arbitration is requested, representatives of the City and the Union shall meet promptly to select a mutually acceptable arbitrator. The fees and expenses of the arbitrator and of a court reporter shall be shared equally by the Union and the City. Each party, however, shall bear the cost of its own presentation, including preparation and post hearing briefs, if any. Decisions of Adjustment Board or Arbitrators on matters properly before them shall be final and - binding.on the parties hereto, to the extent permitted by the Charter of the City. 26.5 No Abridgement of Other Rights of Appeal The provisions of this grievance procedure shall not abridge on rights granted to employees under the City Charter or City ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations providing other procedures for resolving disputes, except that an employee may not submit a grievance to an Adjustment Board or arbitrator in accordance with this grievance procedure if the employee has elected to use another procedure available under the City Charter or City ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations for the resolution of his or her grievance. 26.6 Pay Claims All complaints involving or concerning payment of compensation shall be filed in writing and no adjustments shall be retroactive for more than sixty (60) days from the date of filing. Section 27. Safety Committee In an effort to promote health /safety among Fire Department employees, a joint Committee consisting of the Fire Department Deputy Chief, the City Risk Manager, the Fire Department Safety Officer and the Union Safety Chairman shall be established. This Committee shall meet at least once per month to review accident, injury and exposure reports and other information with a bearing on employees' health and safety, and make recommendations to correct unsafe/hazardous conditions and problems associated with collected data. 23 Section 28. Separability of Provisions Should any Section, clause or provision of this Memorandum of Understanding be declared illegal by final judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such Section, clause or provision shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this Memorandum of Understanding Upon such invalidation the parties agree. immediately to meet and confer on substitute provisions for such parts or provisions rendered or declared illegal. Section 29. Past Practices and Existing Memoranda of Understanding 29.1 Continuance of working conditions and practices not specifically authorized by ordinance or resolution of the City Council is not guaranteed by this Memorandum of Understanding. 29.2 It is understood and agreed by the parties that this Memorandum of Under- standing supersedes all previous agreements between the parties, and that upon approval by the Alameda City Council it shall be binding and enforceable to the full extent permitted by law. In the event provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding are inconsistent with any City laws, resolutions, rules, or regulations, the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding shall prevail. 29.3 This Agreement shall be effective as of the first day of January 1993 and shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 1994. Made and entered into this ALAMEDA FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION Loc: b89, IAFF JGL. 3 By day of March, 1993. CITY OF ATAHED By as to Form By EY By 24 APPENDIX "A" An employee assigned to a classification represented by the Association and who was hired by the City prior to July 2, 1981 shall, upon completion of each anniversary year and a minimum of one thousand eight hundred (1800) straight -time hours in pay status (forty (40) hour workweek) or two thousand five hundred (2500) straight -time hours in a pay status (fifty -six (56) hour workweek) within the twelve (12) month period immediately preceding each anniversary year, accrue sick leave at the following rate: • Years.of Service Sick Leave 1 -5 6 -15 16 or more 10 working days per year 15 working days per year 20 working days per year In addition, an employee shall accrue sick leave at the rate of one (1) working day per month, provided the employee has been in a pay status one hundred sixty .(160) straight -time hours that month for an employee in a classification having a forty (40) hour workweek or two hundred twenty -four (224) straight -time hours that month for an employee in a classification having a fifty -six (56) hour workweek. For employees whose workweek is fifty -six (56) hours, each twenty -four (24) hour on -duty period shall be deemed to equal two (2) working days for the purpose of computing sick leave. Furthermore, an employee hired by the City prior to July 1, 1978, who resigr3 or retires from City employment and has been in the service of the City for a minimum of ten (10) years, will be eligible for payment of unused accumulated sick leave based on the following calculation: Formula for payment of an employee's unused accumulated sick leave at the time of resignation or retirement. One and two- tenths of one percent (1.2 %) of the employee's unused accumulated sick leave at the time of resignation or retirement, times the number of full years of service by the employee with the City, times the employee's daily pay rate at the time of resignation or retirement; provided, however that in no event shall the payment for unused accumulated sick leave exceed thirty percent (30 %) of the monetary value of the employee's unused sick leave accumulation. Unused sick leave accumulation for the purpose of payment at time of retirement or resignation shall not exceed the number of days accrued by the employee on July 1, 1978. There shall be no payment for unused accumulated sick leave if an employee's service with the City is terminated due to discharge. 25 TO: FROM: APPENDIX "B" ACCESS TO WORK LOCATION DATE: SUBJECT: Under Section 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding reasonable access to employee work locations shall be granted officers of the Union and officially designated representatives of the Union provided that such access does not interfere with normal Fire Department operations. Access is hereby requested for the specific purpose of at Respectfully submitted, Received by 26 APPENDIX "C" Education Advancement Program The City agrees to the following Education Advancement Program in the Fire Department: An employee who qualifies for a training incentive award will receive, during the employee's period of eligibility, an award in the amount of: 1. $60 per month for meeting the basic qualifications; 2. $70 per month upon achievement of a Fire Science Certificate; 3. $80 per month upon achievement of an AA Degree in Fire Science; 4. $100 per month upon achievement of a bachelors degree in Fire Science or closely related field. In order to initially qualify for the Education Advancement Program, an employee must meet all of, the following requirements: 1. Completion of a probationary period of at least eighteen (18) months of full -time employment as an employee with the Alameda Fire Department. 2. Receipt of a current rating of satisfactory performance, as certified by the Education Advancement Program Review Board. 3. One of the following: (a) Successful completion of a minimum of fifty (50) classroom hours of approved training during the immediately preceding twelve (12) month period; or (b) possession of a Fire Science Certificate; or (c) possession of an AA or higher degree from a recognized college or university in Fire Science or closely related field. CITY OF ALAMEDA FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS-GOVERNING THE EDUCATION ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM 1. DEFINITION AND PURPOSE a. An Education Advancement Program is established in the Alameda Fire Department to provide an incentive in the form of a separate, monetary award to qualified employees who participate in an approved and educational program to improve their individual knowledge, skill and effectiveness in the field of fire science, including the technologies of fire suppression and prevention. b. For the purposes of this program, a "qualified firefighter or qualified employee" shall be defined as a sworn member of the Fire Department, below the rank of Fire Chief, including the classifications of Assistant Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, Apparatus Operator and Firefighter, who meet the requirements of the Education Advancement Program. c. An employee who qualified for a training incentive award will receive, during his period of eligibility, an award in the amount of: 1. $60 per month for meeting the basic qualifications; 2. $70 per month upon achievement of a Fire Science Certificate; 27 3. $80 per month upon achievement of an AA Degree in Fire Science; 4. $100 per month upon achievement of a bachelors degree in Fire Science or closely related field. 2. ELIGIBILITY a. In order to initially qualify for the Education Advancement Program, a firefighter must meet all of the following requirements: 1. Completion of the probationary period of at least eighteen (18) month full -time employment as a firefighter with the Alameda Fire Department- 2. Receipt of a current rating of satisfactory performance as certified by the Education Advancement Program Review Board. 3. Either: (a) Successful completion of a minimum of fifty (50) classroom hours of approved training during the immediately preceding twelve. (12) month period; or (b) possession of an A.A. or higher degree from a recognized college or university in Fire Science or closely related field. b. A Firefighter may meet the education requirements of this program; by completing fifty (50) classroom hours of approved training or of approved courses at an accredited public or private school, college or university. c. Three (3) semester units or four (4) quarter units of approved public or private school, college or university course work shall be equivalent to fifty (50) hours of classroom study. d. Initial qualification will be for a twelve (12) month period for Firefighters meeting the education requirements contained in Section II A -3 (a). Initial qualifications will be for a twenty -four (24) month period for Firefighters meeting the education requirements stated in Section II A -3 (b). e. To requalify for an Education Advancement Program, a Firefighter, without an A.A. or higher degree must meet education and performance requirements outlined in Paragraphs II 'A 2 -3 (a) by July 1 each year. Requalification will be for a twelve (12) month period. f. A Firefighter with an A.A. or higher degree in Fire Science or closely related field shall requalify by meeting the education and performance requirements outlined in paragraphs II A 2 -3 (a) by July 1 of his next twenty -four (24) month qualification period. Requalification will be for a twenty -four (24) month period. As an exception to paragraph F above, a Firefighter who has obtained a B.A. or higher degree in Fire Science or closely related field shall requalify by meeting the performance requirements contained in paragraph II A -2 by July 1 each year. A Firefighter attending a public or private school, college or university will be required to complete the selected course of study with a passing grade, which shall be a mark of C or its equivalent or higher. i. A Firefighter attending training courses will be required to complete the course of study successfully. A Firefighter will not receive credit for an approved course more than once. Accordingly, routine refresher courses, such as First Aid will not be approved as meeting the education requirement of this program. g. J- 28 k. A Firefighter may meet the education requirements of the program by teaching without compensation in a departmental or accredited Fire Science training school. 1. A Firefighter who wishes to teach must submit in advance an acceptable outline of the material for approval by the Review Board. m. Up to three (3) hours credit may be given by the Board for each hour the Firefighter is engaged in teaching, depending upon the amount of preparation time required. Where the same outline or teaching material is used on successive occasions, credit will be given only for the time needed to complete the assignment. n. A Firefighter who reaches his second anniversary with the City, may be eligible for an Education' Advancement Program Award immediately providing he meets the initial qualifying requirements stated above. Thereafter, a Firefighter potentially will be eligible for a twelve (12) or twenty -four (24) month period beginning each July 1. o. The award provided under the Education Advancement Program may be withdrawn at any time from any Firefighter who fails to maintain a satisfactory level of performance. Determination of unsatisfactory performance shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, a review by the Board of the Firefighters most recent service rating during the past twelve (12) months, or after the conclusion of a disciplinary action processed in accordance with procedures contained in City. Charter, Article 13, Section 3, Ordinance 642, Section 12 and Civil Service Board Rule VIII, Section 3. Withdrawal of the Education Advancement Program Award shall be by action of the City Manager upon the recommendation of the Review Board. 3. TEXTBOOK REIMBURSEMENT a. A Firefighter who qualifies for the Education Advancement Program Award shall receive, in addition to one of the awards Stated in paragraph 1 -C, reimbursement for the cost of textbooks required for approved courses which are successfully completed as part of the Education Advancement Program, provided that such books are turned in to the Fire Department in•good condition at the conclusion of the course, if requested by the Review Board. b. The amount of textbook reimbursement will be determined by the Review Board. To aid in computing the reimbursement amount the Board may require the Firefighter to supply certain documents such as a receipt for the book's purchase, evidence that it was purchased by the Firefighter and a copy of the official book list for the approved course. c. In lieu of reimbursement for textbook expense described in paragraphs 3 -a and 3 -b, the Fire Department may, at its option, provide or make available textbooks to Firefighters for approved courses. These books must be returned in good condition to the Fire Department at the conclusion of the Course for use by other Firefighters taking similar courses. 4. EDUCATION ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM AWARD REVIEW BOARD a. The Education Advancement Program Review Board is hereby created to administer the Education Advancement' Program. The Board shall be responsible to the City Manager, and its functions shall be limited to those outlined in these regulations. b. The Review Board shall consist of the Fire Chief or his designated representative, a member appointed by the City Manager, and a third member to be appointed by the Firefighters' Union Local 689, from its active membership. 29 The Review Board shall determine then standards of acceptance and c credits for approved study a shall establish and issue of d. The Review training ?o initially for which credit Billd given. The be list may trai upd tedortun time to time by the list ma be updated from conspicuously posted in the Fire Department. A roved courses normally shall be in the field of Fire Science, but if they will enhance a Firefighter's course ill mny a ecti effectiveness and particularly if is and effectiveness in Fire Science, an P part of a sequence of courses for an A.A. or B.A. degree in Fire S or closely related field. Science, Y calif for an The fifty (50) approved by the Review e d classroom hours Award shall besapp to q for the program shall submit Bar. Education Firefighters Advancement Pros qualify the for the or ram sea l submit Board. Board, ouh the Fire�Chief, to the Board, $ submitted in advance of enrollment, to ll indicate This statement, school, the course title, of c flits or �ts, the name of the instructor and the class of credits or schedule. however, may propose to take a course not on the list; A credit Firefighter given for completion of that course unless it is credit will not beg approved by the Board. f When a Firefighter ct o successfully completes an approved course or :certification of this* fact is received in a form courses and it shall review the e has bgen maintained Ratings to determine the Board, performance has (24) months ais, during to determine if twelve (1 ) or twenty for whichg the previous t of the period of eligibility whichever is_approPriate in light qualified. The Board must potentially is q aliie in order for him certia Firefighter satisfactory performance to the for to qua ify for an 'Education AdvanCement Program Award. ..Education Firefighter currently is qualified for the g Advancement a Firefi Award, is injured in the n of of fifty and, (s0a result, e is Program A annual requirement performance result, is unable to training of training, the education and rlqusreoe homes y e City Manager upon recommendation requirements may be Board. waived by be granted until the The waiver may. period of. the Review Boa to•work and is able, within a reasonable p Firefighter returns of time, to requalify for the Award. AUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT y authorized S• which adopting Resolution No 8135, The Fire Department Education Advancement Program was of July the Alameda City Council "Salary and Position Resolution amended Resolution No. 8094, 1, 1973 " - A the Fire Department Education cations governing administrative directive b The rules and regulations Advancement ancement Program shall be established by issued by the City meager. governing the Fire Amendments to the :.. rules regulations g the Fire c. Department Education Advancement oftherReviewSBoard e' made by Manager upon recommendation a. 30 APPENDIX "D" MEDICAL APPOINTMENT VERIFICATION This form is to be completed and submitted with the ADVANCED NOTIFICATION OF ABSENCE FORM. This is to verify that the appointment for on at (date) (location) a date that your employee is scheduled to Fire Department shift schedule and no employee's regular day off without undue (name of employee) is being made on work. I have reviewed the employee's appointment was available on your Delay or for other good cause. Medical Authority (Name and Title) APPENDIX "E" AGREEMENT TRANSFERRING 1082 PENSION SYSTEM MEMBERS TO PERS This Agreement, entered into this day of , 1993, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City ") and the members (hereinafter "Members ") of the 1082 Pension System (hereinafter "1082 Plan "), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. The City of Alameda created by ordinance the 1082 Plan which provides pension benefits for its Members. B. City and Members desire to transfer membership in the 1082 Plan to the State of California's Public Employees' Pension System (hereinafter "PERS "). NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as follows: 1) As soon as practicable all current retirees and all current active and future employees covered by the 1082 Plan will be transferred to the PERS Safety 2% at 50 full formula as provided in Section 21252.01 of the Government Code of the State of California, including the following optional benefits: a) Section 20024.2 (One Year Highest Compensation) b) Section 20835.1 (Limit Prior Service to Members Employed on Contract Date) c) Section 21361.5 (Local System Service Credit) d) Section 20862.8 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave) and (non - restricted accrual of sick leave) e) Section 21263 and 21263.1 (Post - Retirement Survivor Allowance) f) Section 21266 (Post - Retirement Survivor Allowance to Continue After Remarriage) g) Section 21382.4 (Third level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). Employer will pay employer contribution. 2) Upon the City transferring the 1082 Plan to PERS, the IRS will be requested to review the tax consequences of the following language: Any election to convert the City paid employee contribution will be revoked in the event the employees returns to duty status." 3) Upon the City transferring the 1082 Plan to PERS, the following language will apply to all safety employees of the City: Employees who are members of the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) may participate in a PERS "Pick -Up Program ". Said Program operates under the provisions contained in Section 414(h) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code concerning the tax treatment of employee retirement contributions to PERS paid by the City of Alameda on behalf of said employees. The City shall contribute to PERS each pay period a portion of the employee contribution rate as established by law equal to nine percent (9 %) of the employee's "compensation" as that term is administered by the Board of Administration of PERS. Contributions made pursuant to this section shall be reported to PERS as "employee contributions being made by the contracting agency." The City will not treat these contributions as compensation subject to income tax withholding unless the Internal Revenue Service or Franchise Tax Board, determines that such contributions are taxable income subject to withholding. Each employee is solely and personally responsible for any federal, state or local tax liability of the employee that may arise out of the implementation of this section or any penalty that may be imposed therefor. Except as set forth in the following paragraphs the aforesaid contribution shall be considered solely for the purpose set forth herein and shall not be considered for any other purpose including, but not limited to, being considered as part of any employee's salary for the purpose of computing straight -time earnings, compensation for paid leaves, compensation for overtime worked, compensation benefits and the City's contribution to PERS. Any employee who has attained the age of forty-five (45) may elect to convert the said City paid employee contribution to PERS to a salary increase of the same amount. Such election shall be irrevocable, must be made in writing and received by the Personnel Director, and shall become effective on the first of the month following the date of election. In the event of such election the employee will thereafter be required to make the total amount of his or contribution rate established by law. In the . event an illness or injury occurs which - may cause an employee's retirement, that employee may immediately convert the nine percent (9 %) City -paid employee contribution to the retirement fund to a nine percent (9 %) salary increase, in which event the employee will be required to pay the total amount, nine percent (9 %), of the employee contribution which had been paid by the City to the retirement fund. The City shall afford the employee, at the employee's option, the ability to pay the nine percent (9 %) City -paid employee contribution to the retirement fund retroactive twelve (12) months prior to an illness or injury which may cause an employee's retirement. Any election to convert the City paid employee contribution will be revoked in the event the employee returns to duty status. 4) Upon the City transferring the 1082 Plan to PERS, the following language will apply to all 1082 safety ,employees and retirees who retired under 1082 who elect to transfer to PERS and current safety employees: a. Medical Insurance For 1082 retirees and future Public Safety retirees who thar cur ently members of one of the City sponsored health plans, the case m the health plan lain untilttheeretired a ployee is eligibleefor the case maybe, for that p medicare coverage. If and when the retiree becomes eligible for Medicare vide the retiree a coverage, Part A and Part B, then for in Gov Code Sections Medicare supppplementary program as provided 22819 and 22859. In place of the above described rates, the City will pay the full cost of such Medicare Supplement Program. Any of the above mentioned retirees who currently are not enrolled in a City sponsored health plan may elect to receive a monthly contribution by the City, equal to the average of the one -party or two -party rates. whichever is appropriate, paid by the City, to a qualified health care plan (on record with the City) for the purpose of purchasing health care. Retired employee dependent eligibility for City health plan contribution is conditional upon the active enrollment of the retired employee. For an employee of the City, who was married at the time of retirement and who dies during retirement, the surviving unmarried spouse of the retiree will have his or her medical insurance paid by the City at the single party rate. . 33 If a retired employee remarries, the retiree may add the retiree's spouse to the medical insurance coverage at the retiree's expense. b Dental 1082 retirees and future Public Safety retirees may elect to receive a monthly contribution by the City, equal to the one party or two party rate, as the case may be, paid by the City, to a qualified dental care plan (on record with the City) for the purpose of purchasing dental care. For an employee of the City, who was married at the time of retirement and who dies during retirement, the surviving unmarried spouse of the retiree will have his or her dental insurance costs paid, by the City at the single party rate. Should the City provide a dental benefit plan covering retired employees at a later date, the City shall provide the retiree and the surviving spouse the option of joining said plan at City cost at the appropriate rate. If a retired employee remarried, the retiree may add the retiree's spouse to the dental insurance coverage at the retiree's expense. 5) Any monies left in the 1082 Fund after the necessary funds have been transferred to PERS will be administered by the 1082 Pension Board to fund Health & Welfare (e.g. medical and dental) benefits for eligible retirees and dependents formerly members of the 1082 Pension System. Any other use of these monies would be a subject of negotiation with the Alameda Police Association and IAFF Local 689 representatives and would require their concurrence. 6) An individual Member who is retired from the City of Alameda under 1082 may make an irrevocable election to remain in the 1082 Plan. The existing benefits of the individual Member of the 1082 Plan at the time of election shall remain in > full force and effect, without additions or deletions. Such election shall be made in writing to the City's Personnel Director and be made within fifteen (15) days from the date of the receipt of the Notice of Election. 7) This Agreement shall be effective upon ratification of all PERS transfer /contract amendment requirements. Non - restricted accrual of sick leave for purposes of Optional Benefit Section 20862.8 shall be effective as of January 1, 1990. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation A ROV D ,AS' TO FORM : City Attorney ATTEST: 34 BY: Members of the 1082 Pension System BY: Authorized Representative BY BY: BY: Authorized Representative Authorized Representative Authorized Representative APPENDIX "F" CITY OF AL-AMVDA BILINGUAL PAY POLICY The hiring and retention of bilingual employees by the City of Alameda is desirable to more effectively meet the needs of the community and to enable the City to provide efficient service to the community. A program which compensates employees for bilingual skills, used in selected positions, will enhance recruitment of minority employees,, particularly Hispanics and Asians, and reinforce the City's interest in providing service to the minority community. It is, therefore, the policy of the City to pay an incentive on a continuing basis to employees with bilingual skills when used in positions having high levels of contact with the non - English speaking community. The City will also pay an incentive to employees using bilingual skills on a situational basis, as required to conduct business. CITY OF ALAMEDA BILINGUAL PAY PROCEDURES Employees may be entitled to bilingual pay in one, but _not both, of the following: I. CONTINUED BASIS ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES Each full -time employee who meets the following requirements will be compensated at the rate of $21.00 per bi- weekly pay period ($14.00 for part -time employees) for each pay period actually worked if: A. The employee has been certified (within a five (5) year period) as bilingual according to currently established procedure. B. The position to which the employee is currently assigned has been Selectively certified by the Director of Personnel and the Department Head as requiring bilingual ability on a continuing basis. BILINGUAL CERTIFICATION Employees shall be certified as bilingual by the Personnel Department" staff in consultation with appropriate outside experts, based on an oral assessment of word definitions and sentence translation. Bilingual ability will be assessed only for languages specified by the Department Head and recommended for the personnel Department's approval. ELIGIBLE CLASSIFICATIONS Only those classification certified by the Personnel Department may receive bilingual incentive compensation. Department Heads may request that certain classifications /positions receive bilingual pay through a written recommendation to the Personnel Department. Based on the recommendation submitted, the Personnel Department determines whether the need for a bilingual skill is justified and approves the awarding of bilingual pay incentive. ADMINISTRATION The Personnel Department is responsible for administering the bilingual pay program, based on recommendations from Department Heads relative to appropriate positions and languages. The Personnel Department will maintain a current list of positions and employees certified to receive the bilingual pay incentive. 1I. SITUATIONAL BASIS. ELIGIBLE EMPIA`iEES All full -time City employees included in the "List of Bilingual Employees" will be compensated at the rate The situation on must require instance ignificant bilingual slati skills are used. interpretation necessary to complete City translation of documents or interP er pay necessary allowed. business. A maximum of one payment p p y ADMINISTRATION a formal request by the Department The Personnel Department is responsible for administering the Bilingual ult result Pay Program. Payment will services, to include: Head requiring the bilingual 1. employee name; 2. language used; 3. date of use; 4. description of situation which required bilingual skills. alaffk.£ P CITY OF ALAMEDA'S LAST OFFER BEFORE IMPASSE WAS DECLARED 1. Section 10.1 Work Schedules Fire Chief may institute 10/14 -hour work schedule for Fire Suppression employees. Currently, employees work nine 24 -hour shifts in a month. (Not arbitrable.) 2. Section 10.2 Shift Trades Delete language that says shifts of less than 10 hours will not count as part of three shifts per month limit. (Not arbitrable.) 3. Section 11.4 Overtime Call -in Procedures Delete overtime requests in accordance with GOB 2-41; Fire Chief will assign overtime as appropriate. (Not arbitrable.) 4. Section 12.3 Step Increases Employees will move to the Steps 2, 3 and 4 after one year, rather than after six months. (Arbitrable.) 5. Section 13.1 Flexible Benefit Plan New employees hired after January 1, 1995 will be reimbursed for medical and dental when they retire if they have worked for the City for at least 20 years; currently, employees must only work 15 years to receive reimbursement for medical and dental after retirement. (Arbitrable.) 6. Section 14 Retirement Plan Clean up language. (Not arbitrable.) 7. Section 17.1 Vacation Scheduling Up to three employees may be on vacation on any one day in June, July and August; up to two employees on vacation the rest of the year, but no more than one officer. (Not arbitrable.) 1 EXHIBIT F 8. Section 17.2 Vacation Benefits Suppression employees would receive 112 hours of vacation after one year; 168 hours of vacation after six years; and 222 hours of vacation after 16 years. This would be .a reduction in the accrual rate for vacation from 72 hours to 56 hours per week of vacation for suppression employees. (Arbitrable.) 9. Section 18.1 Sick Leave Benefits Suppression employees would accrue 11.2 hours of sick leave per month, rather than 12 hours per month. (Arbitrable.) 10. Section 18.3 Doctor's Certificate or Other Proof (Sick Leave) A doctor's certificate would be required when an absence is for three consecutive days or two consecutive shifts; presently a doctor's certificate is required when an absence is for five consecutive days or three consecutive shifts. (Not arbitrable.) 11. Section 25.4(1) Promotional Exams Delete the second paragraph, relating to updates of job descriptions. Not arbitrable.) 12. Section 25.4(3) Eligibility to Participate in Promotional Exam Add provision that two years with the Alameda Naval Air fire department equals one year with the Alameda Fire Department. (Not arbitrable.) 13. Appendix E Agreement Transferring 1082 Pension System Members to PERS Revise the PERS benefits for new employees hired after January 1, 1996 to provide: (1) 2% at 55 plan, rather than 2% at 50; (2) 3 -year average for final compensation, rather than one year highest; and (3) no credit for unused sick leave in calculating retirement benefits. (Arbitrable.) J: \WPD\MNRSW\I 82\MI SC\19\EXH_F.020 EHS:rja TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James Flint City Manager DATE: October 20, 1998 SUBJEC "1': CONSIDERATION OF ARBITRATOR'S AWARD F LOCAL 689) PURSUANT TO CHARTER SECTION 17-17: RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS. APPROVING WAGE AND BENEFIT INCREASES FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BYIAFF, LOCAL 689. CALLINGA SPECIAL ELECTIONIN THE OF AI;AMEDA ON JUNE 8. 1999 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING A SPECIAL TAX TO THE ELECTORS FOR APPROVAL TO RAISE REVENUES TO PAY ADDITIONAL WAGE AND BENEFIT INCREASES TO SUCH EMPLOYEES: AND RESOLUTION STATING COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO SUBMIT SECOND MEASURE TO THE ELECTORS AT JUNE 8. 1999 SPECIAL ELECTION TO PAY ON- GOING COSTS OF ARBITRATOR'S AWARD RETIREE COSTS Background The City and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 689 ( "Union ") entered into a memorandum of understanding ( "MOU ") for the period January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1994. The Municipal Employee Relations Officer's designee and the Union began negotiations in November 1994 in an attempt to reach agreement on the terms of a new MOU for the period commencing January 1, 1995. The parties met and conferred on 14 occasions until the Union declared impasse on September 26, 1995. Pursuant to the City's "Employer- Employee Relations Resolution" (Resolution No. 7476), an impasse meeting was held on October 19, 1995 and a mediation meeting was held on November 30, 1995. The City and the Union did not resolve the impasse at either the impasse meeting and/or through mediation. Thereafter, on January 3, 1996 the Union requested the City convene an interest arbitration pursuant to Article 27 of the City Charter. Article 27 was first added to the Charter in November, 1980, when the voters approved Measure C. (Exhibit A to Attachment 1.) In November, 1982 the people approved Measure D, amending Article 27. (Exhibit C to Attachment 1.) Since November 1982, Charter Section 27 -5 has required that all disputes or controversies pertaining to financial benefits only, which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations between the City and the Union shall be submitted to an arbitration upon the declaration of an impasse by the City or by the Union. Since then, Section 27 -8 of the Charter has provided that "enforcement" of arbitration awards shall be consistent with Charter Section 17 -17. "Enforcement", as used in Section 27 -8, refers to the City's actions to carry out or implement the Arbitrator's Award, not to a court proceeding. The arbitration began on October 23, 1996. There were 42 outstanding proposals which the Union contended were arbitrable. The City representatives were willing to submit 22 proposals relating to "financial benefits" to arbitration. The October 23 hearing was terminated when it was clear there was no agreement between the City representatives and the Union regarding which proposals were arbitrable and who would decide that issue, absent agreement. The Union filed suit (Alameda Superior Court #775488 -5) to compel the City to arbitrate all proposals. The Superior Court issued its Order partially granting and partially denying the petition to compel arbitration and its Statement of Decision on February 28, 1997, finding that only 27of the 42 proposals were arbitrable. (Copies of both the Order and Statement of Decision are attached as Exhibit G to Attachment 1.) The 15 proposals which the Superior Court found were not arbitrable are listed on Exhibit H to Attachment 1. Some of these proposals are Union proposals and some are City proposals. The Council should consider resolution of the 15 non - arbitrable proposals by separate action to be taken in the future pursuant to Resolution No. 7476. The staff is not asking the Council to take action regarding the 15 non - arbitrable proposals at this meeting. The arbitration then re- commenced on June 17, 1997 and concluded on January 27, 1998. The City and the Union submitted post- arbitration briefs and the arbitrator, Armon Barsamian, issued his Opinion and Award on July 15, 1998, which is attached as Exhibit J to Attachment 1. This is the first time since 1980 that an arbitration has been held pursuant to Article 27 and, accordingly, the first time the Council has been required 2 to consider enforcement of the award consistent with Charter Section 17 -17. The City has until October 22, 1998 to seek a court order vacating the award. Staff considers the October 22 date to thus be the date by which the Council must consider the award, in accordance with Charter sections 27 -8 and 17 -17. Discussion/Analysis In 1980, the people approved Measure B which added Section 17 -17 to the Charter. Charter section 17 -17 has remained unchanged since 1980, despite a Council - sponsored initiative to amend it and a citizen- sponsored initiative to repeal it (Measures D and E on the November 1992 ballot, respectively). Staff is not aware of any similar provision in any other charter in California. Although section 17 -17 may be unique, the City Attorney believes it is constitutional. Section 17 -17 provides that no additional financial burdens that have not been approved by a resolution of the City Council may be imposed on the taxpayers as a result of arbitration without voter approval of additional revenues and appropriations. When the electorate voted on Measure B, the City Attorney's analysis told them that "No vote is required for Council approved wages, benefits or expenses. Only the difference between what the Council has approved and what an arbitrator or other non- elected person has approved requires voter approval." In those cases, the City Attorney concluded that the voters must approve both an additional revenue source and an increase in the appropriations limit. Moreover, the argument in favor of Measure B stated that the Alameda citizens "want to control the cost of government." Finally, the argument against Measure B stated that "What this measure would do is require a special two - thirds vote of the people to ratify any arbitration award which did not adopt the City Council's position." (Exhibit B to Attachment 1.) The Council is required by Section 17 -17 to consider the Arbitrator's Award and, by resolution, determine what wages, benefits and employee related expenses that are included in the Arbitrator's Award should be approved. If the Council determines that only a portion of the Arbitrator's Award should be approved, then the Council is required to call an election at which the voters will have the opportunity to approve a special tax to provide the additional revenues to pay the wages, benefits and employee related expenses which are not approved by the Council resolution (referred to in the Charter as "additional financial burdens "). The Council must also ask the voters to approve a corresponding increase in the City's appropriations limit. Although Section 17 -17 refers to Article XIIIA, section 4 3 ( "Proposition 13 "), and Article XIIIB, section 4 ( "Proposition 4 "), of the State Constitution, recently - enacted Article XIIIC ( "Proposition 218 ") must also be followed by the Council in placing any measures before the voters. The City's last offer before impasse was declared is described in Exhibit F to Attachment 1. This offer was for 1995 calendar year only. It proposes no wage increases for 1995 (all other bargaining groups agreed to no wage increases for 1995, with the police receiving adjustments to differentials and retention pay.) In addition, the City made an offer to the Union dated August 21, 1997 (Exhibit I to Attachment 1 [ "August 1997 Offer "]) which, although not considered by the Arbitrator, was considered an "on the record" offer by the Union which it rejected on September 8, 1997. In carrying out its obligation under Section 17 -17, it is appropriate for the Council to consider the August 1997 Offer, along with the City's offer at the time impasse was declared, because both offers were made to the Union -- one "on the record" and one "off the record" -- and both were considered by the Union. Testimony during the arbitration from the City's chief spokesman indicated that "off the record" offers have been made in the past in negotiations between the City and the Union and in the instant negotiations. Budget Impact/Fiscal Considerations The cost to implement the City's offer at the time impasse was declared (Exhibit F to Attachment 1) would be zero. The cost to implement the August 1997 Offer for 1995, 1996 and 1997 would be approximately $763,688. This includes: increases in rates of pay (3% for 1996 and 2.5% for 1997); • increases in the differential in pay between ranks (Apparatus Operator top step would be 8.95% above Firefighter top step (is 5.95 %); Lieutenant top step would be 16.47% above Firefighter top step (is 12.47 %); Captain top step would be 24.04 % above Firefighter top step (is 21.04 %)); • increased Employee Assistance Program visits; • increased EMT pay; and • increased ambulance pay. 4 The cost to implement the Arbitrator's Award in full for 1995 - 1997 would be approximately $1,885,320. This includes: increases in rates of pay (3% for 1995, 5% for 1996 and 4% for 1997) and adjustment to special pay resulting from increases in the rates of pay (acting pay, overtime, FLSA overtime); • increased differentials (Apparatus Operator top step would be 7.5% in 1996 and 9% in 1997 above Firefighter; Lieutenant top step would be 13.5% in 1996 and 16% in 1997 above Firefighter top step; and Captain would be 22.5% in 1996 and 24% in 1997 over Firefighter top step); • limited duty pay; • increased dental benefits; • increased EMT pay; • increased ambulance pay; and • pay for compensatory time The Finance Director has evaluated the City's financial resources in light of the economic uncertainties facing the City. The Council considered a report from the Finance Director at its January 28, 1998 meeting regarding the financial challenged facing the City. That report described the various "threats" looming on the City's economic horizon, including: s potential loss of $1,600,000 per year in utility users tax revenues potential costs and revenue losses of $1,250,000 per year related to emergency medical services and ambulance services • debt service for library construction costs of $245,000 per year and library operational costs of $1,200,000 per year • pension plan benefits which are unfunded of $3,150,000 per year (which will be reduced' over time) • medical and dental benefits for retirees of $350,000 per year, expected to increase • potential loss of Bureau of Electricity transfers to the general fund resulting from deregulation of electric services of $2,600,000 to $3,600,000 per year • the cost of continuing municipal services to Alameda Point, 5 estimated at $5,000,000 per year beginning October 1999 • the legal costs of the lawsuit concerning the expansion of the Oakland Airport, estimated at $1,000,000 and the loss of Measure B monies for transportation improvements, estimated at $975,000. These economic "threats" remain unresolved. However, although these economic challenges continue to be serious issues for the City, there are sufficient monies in general fund reserves to implement the August 1997 Offer retroactively and general fund reserves and/or departmental savings are available to pay these increased wages and benefits for 1998. The on -going cost of the August 1997 Offer can be funded with operating revenues. Implementation of the Arbitrator's Award, however, would require use of additional reserves, further service reductions or increased revenues. In light of the actions taken by the Council over the last five to six years to reduce expenditures (Attachment 2) and to raise revenues (Attachment 3), there are few choices left to the Council other than use of reserves. The City's ability to raise revenues is particularly constrained because of Proposition 218 (adding Article XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution). The use of reserves to implement the Arbitrator's Award would impact the City's ability to meet the Council's long- standing goal, first established in 1989 and formalized on February 27, 1997) that general fund reserves should be 25% of operating expenditures. Approval of the Arbitrator's Award would require a reduction in reserves not only to pay the Award (1995 -1997) but to pay the increased salaries and benefits on an on- going basis. The use of, general fund reserves for this purpose would be contrary to the "Financial Policies/Fund Balance Reserve Levels" formally established by the Council on February 27, 1997. Approval of the resolution attached as Attachment 1 would approve the August 1997 Offer. Although there are costs associated with the August 1997 Offer it is recommended over the City's offer when impasse was declared (Exhibit F to Attachment 1) because the August 1997 Offer provides reasonable increases in compensation for Local 689. In addition, the August 1997 Offer addresses 1995- 1997 whereas the offer at impasse addressed 1995 only. Employees would receive the increased wages and benefits in their paychecks no later than the 2nd pay day in November 1998. In addition, current employees (and former employees) would receive a check for the difference retroactively for 1995 -1996 on or before December 11, 1998. The retroactive difference for 1997 and 1998 to the date the change is made will be paid in the paycheck no later than February 19, 1999. 6 As required by Charter Section 17-17, the draft resolution would then call a special election to be held on June 8, 1999, to submit a special tax to the voters and an adjustment to the "appropriations limit" which, if approved, would provide additional revenues to pay the increased wages, benefits and employee related expenses included in the Arbitrator's Award which are more than those in the August 1997 Offer. The City Manager would return with the details of the special tax (e.g., type of tax, amount of tax, who will be subject to the tax, manner of collection) at a subsequent meeting, thus providing time to prepare a proposed tax which will comply with state law, including Propositions 13, 62 and 218. If the special tax is not approved by the voters, the wages and benefits in the August 1997 Offer would remain in effect (until revised by the meet and confer process). The wages and benefits over the August 1997 Offer would not be paid. The second resolution (Attachment 4) would propose a second special tax to the voters which, if approved and if the first measure is approved, would provide a dedicated funding source to pay the on-going costs of the Arbitrator's Award. In addition, the second measure would include revenues to pay the additional benefits to which retirees under the "1079 Plan" will be entitled as a result of the increases in current employees compensation. These are estimated collectively to be $1,493,888 (for 1998.) As with the first resolution, the City Manager would return with the details of the special tax at a subsequent meeting. If the first special tax is approved but the second special tax is not approved, the City will continue to pay the wages and benefits in the Arbitrator's Award and increased retiree benefits unless revised through the meet and confer process. Recommendation Pursuant to Charter Sections 27-8 and 17-17, the City Manager recommends the Council consider the Arbitrator's Award, the City's offer at the time impasse was declared and the August 1997 Offer. After hearing comments from the Union and the public, the City Manager recommends that the Council approve the "Resolution Making Findings, Approving Certain Wage and Benefit Increases for Fire Department Employees Represented By IAFF, Local 689, Calling Election and Submitting Measure to Voters to Approve Special Tax to Raise Revenues to Pay Additional Wage and Benefits Increases to Such Employees" (Attachment 1) and the "Resolution Stating Council's Intention to Submit Measure to the Electors at June 8, 1999 Special Election to Raise Revenues to Fund On-going Arbitration Costs and Retiree Costs" (Attachment 4). 7 Respectfully submitted, James Flint City Manager Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft "Resolution Making Findings, Approving Certain Wage and Benefit Increases for Fire Department Employees Represented by IAFF, Local 689, Calling Election and Submitting Measure to Voters to Approve Special Tax to Raise Revenues to Pay Additional Wage and Benefits Increases to Such Employees" Attachment 2: "Actions Taken to Reduce Expenditures" Attachment 3: "Revenue Measures Adopted by the City Council (FY 1993 -94) and "Revenue Measures Adopted by the City Council (FY 1994 -95) Attachment 4: Draft "Resolution Making Findings, Approving Certain Wage and Benefit Increases for Fire Department Employees Represented by IAFF, Local 689, Calling Election and Submitting Measure to Voters to Approve Special Tax to Raise Revenues to Pay Additional Wage and Benefits Increases to Such Employees" J : \W P D\M N RS W \ 182\M EM O\ 1 9\STAF FRPT.O20 EHS:rja 8 10 11 12 13 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 28 Carol Korade, City Attorney, SBN: 82133 City of Alameda Carol Korade, City Attorney, SBN: 82133 City of Alameda 2250 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320 Alameda, CA 94501-4456 Elizabeth H. Silver, SBN: 61445 Wayne K Snodgrass, SBN: 148137 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER St WILSON Gateway Plaza 777 Davis Street, Suite 300 San Leandro, California 94577 (510) 351-4300 Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant City of Alameda FILE ALAMEDA COUNTY FE mt. icisotrattori,Ezoc. Rigor% y_W et-. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA NORTHERN BRANCH INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 689, Petitioner and Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALAMEDA, Respondent and Defendant. CASE NO: 775488-5 aft• ECISION Hearing Date: Time: Dept: ] STATEMENT OF January 3, 1997 10:00 a.m. 81 The petition to compel arbitration filed by petitioner International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 689, against respondent City of Alameda, came on for hearing before this Court, the Honorable Sandra Margulies presiding, on January 3, 1997. Petitioner was represented by its counsel, Alan Davis. Respondent was represented by its counsel, Elizabeth H. Silver and Wayne K Snodgrass. The parties, through their respective counsel, filed written points and authorities, declarations, and supporting documents, and presented extensive oral argument at the hearing on the petition. Following argument, the matter was submitted for decision. STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) EXHIBIT G Having heard, read and considered the parties' respective presentations and 2 arguments, this Court herebyorders that the parties arbitrate only the issues 3 described below. 4 A. Factual Background s Petitioner is the union representing fire fighters employed by respondent. 6 Petitioner's members previously worked under a Memorandum of Understanding ('MOU') between petitioner and respondent which expired on December 31, 1994. 8 After the parties' attempts to negotiate a new MOU in accordance with the Meyers- 9 Act, California Government Code §3500 et seq., were unsuccessful, an 10 impasse was declared in the contract negotiations. 11 Respondent's Resolution No. 7476, adopted in 1969 and entitled 12 "Implementing Meyers-Milias-Brown Act by Establishing Procedures for 13 Administration of Employer-Employee Relations Between City and Its Employee 14 Organizations; and for Resolving Matters Affecting Employment," generally applies to 15 disputes between the City and all of its employees (excluding elected officials). 16 Under Resolution No. 7476, either party in such a dispute may declare an impasse 17 in contract negotiations between the City and an employee organization. After a 18 declaration of impasse, the parties shall hold an impasse meeting, and select and 19 employ certain procedures to attempt to resolve the impasse. If the impasse remains 20 unresolved, the City Council may order a resolution to the impasse. 21 The city charter of respondent City of Alameda, however, requires that 22 arbitration, rather than the procedures set forth in Resolution No. 7476, be used to 23 resolve disputes "pertaining to financial benefits." The charter states at §27-S as 24 follows: 25 Impasse Resolution Procedures. All disputes or controversies pertaining to financial benefits only ' which remain unresolved after good faith negotiations 26 between the City and the fire department employee organization shall be submitted to an arbitration upon the declaration of an impasse by the City or 27 by the recognized fire department employee organization. 28 At section 27-3(A), respondent's charter defines "financial benefits" as follows: STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 2 'Financial benefits' shall mean monthly base salaries; all supplementary cash entitlements paid directly to employees; and health insurance, retirement, vacation, hohday and sick leave benefits. At section 27-6, respondent's charter requires that any arbitration of a dispute pertaining to financial benefits "shall be conducted in conformance with, subject, and governed by Title 9 of Part 3 of the California Code of Civil Procedure except that either partylnay elect to use three (3) arbitrators, one picked by each party and one neutral arbitrator." Thus, under respondent's charter, the only arbitrable disputes between petitioner and respondent are those "pertaining to financial benefits." After petitioner 10 and respondent agreed upon the selection of an arbitrator, disagreement arose as to 11 who was to determine the arbitrability of each of the several dozen contract proposals 12 in dispute. Petitioner asserted that the arbitrator was to hear evidence on, and then rule on the arbitrability of, each disputed contract proposal. Respondent asserted that if the parties could not agree which of the disputed contract proposals pertained 15 to financial benefits and were thus arbitrable, that question must be decided by the 16 Court. The parties were unable to resolve this procedural dispute, and respondent 17 declined to proceed to arbitration until it was resolved. Petitioner then brought this 18 petition, seeking to compel arbitration of each of the contract proposals in dispute 19 between petitioner and respondent. 20 B. This Court, Rather Than The Arbitrator, Determines Which Issues Are Arbitrable Under The City of Alameda's Charter. 21 The first principal controverted issue in this proceeding is whether this Court 22 or the arbitrator has the authority to determine which of the numerous contract 23 proposals are to be submitted to, and resolved by, arbitration. As explained below, 24 this Court orders that this determination should be made by the Court, not the 25 28 arbitrator. Respondent's charter, at §27-6, requires that any arbitration of disputed issues between respondent and petitioner be conducted under and in accordance with the STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 3 California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure § 1280 et seq. Under the California Arbitration Act, the determination as to the arbitrability of each issue in dispute must be made by the court before compelling arbitration, not by the arbitrator. Under C.C.P. §1281.2, On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists[.] The California Supreme Court has held that §1281.2 requires that the determination of whether a particular controversy is arbitrable be made by the trial 10 court, before the court can compel a party to arbitrate: 11 The clear purpose and effect of section 1281.2 is to require the superior court to determine in advance whether there is a duty to arbitrate the controversy 12 which has arisen. 13 Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 480. 14 Under the California Arbitration Act, an arbitrator may determine the arbitrability of 15 a particular dispute only if the parties' arbitration agreement explicitly provides the 16 arbitrator with the authority to do so. Fontana Teachers Assn. v. Fontana Unified 17 School District (1988) 201 CalApp.3d 1517, 1521; Retail Clerks' Union. Local 775 18 v. Purity Stores. Inc. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 225, 232. If the arbitration agreement 19 I does not explicitly authorize the arbitrator to determine the arbitrability of a 20 particular dispute, the arbitrator has no power to do so, and the court must perfoam 21 that task. Id.; Engineers & Architects Ass'n. v. Comm. Dev. Dept. of the City of Los 22 Angeles (1994) 30 CalApp.4th 644, 652 -3. Federal law also requires a judicial 23 determination of the arbitrability of a particular dispute, absent the parties' express 24 authorization for the arbitrator to make such a determination. First Options of 25 ' Chicago Inc. v. Kaplan (1995) _ U.S. _, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 1924; Litton Financial 26 Printing v. National Labor Relations Board (1991) 501 U.S. 190, 208. 27 Petitioner asserts that the above authorities do not apply in this case because 28 the arbitration at issue here is an "interest" arbitration, in which the arbitrator is to STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 determine the terms of a new employment contract, rather than a "grievance" arbitration, in which the arbitrator applies an already- negotiated contract to a particular'set of facts. As such, petitioner argues that this case is controlled by Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 `Ca1.3d 608. Petitioner asserts that under that decision, the parties must present evidence on each of the disputed contract proposals to the arbitrator, with the arbitrator to determine the arbitrability of each proposal. Petitioner further asserts that the parties are free to modify and change their respective proposals after the arbitration has begun, rather than being required to arbitrate the proposals which the parties have previously exchanged. Petitioner also cites this Court to a number of decisions by courts of other states which petitioner asserts support the notion that, at least in interest arbitration, an arb'trator may properly determine the arbitrability of particular issues. However, this Court cannot agree with petitioner's contentions. The cases from other states which petitioner cites are all essentially grievance, not interest, arbitration decisions, and they do not support petitioner's argument as to how interest arbitration should proceed. Moreover, this Court finds that the City of Vallejo decision does not control. Firstly, whereas respondent's charter her requires that the arbitration proceed in accordance with the California Arbitration Act, C.C.P. §1280 et seq., the City of Vallejo's charter contained no such requirement; the City of Vallejo decision expressly stated that it was not based on, and thus did not construe, the Arbitration Act. J. at 612, fn. 1. The City of Vallejo decision thus does not provide any guidance as to how an arbitration (whether interest or grievance arbitration) conducted pursuant to the California Arbitration Act -- as the arbitration in this case must be - should proceed. Moreover, petitioner's argument that the procedures applicable to grievance arbitration -- and particularly the requirement that determinations as to the arbitrability of particular disputes — do not apply to interest arbitration, is not supported by the California Arbitration Act (which clearly applies in this case) or STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 5 1 i court decisions construing it. Petitioner has cited no provision in the California 2 Arbitration Act or caselaw which creates any exception to C.C.P. §1281.2 for interest 3 ` arbitration; and several federal decisions hold that interest arbitration is subject to the same rules concerning determinations of arbitrability as is grievance arbitration. 5 See. e.g., Beach Air Cond. v. Sheet Metal Workers (9th Cir. 1995) 55 F.3d 474, 476; 6 , Sheet Metal-Workers v. Baylor Heating (7th Cir. 1989) 877 F.2d 547, 551. City of 7 Vallejo does not alter the requirement, imposed by C.C.P. §1281.2 and the cases 8 construing it, that this Court determine the arbitrability of each disputed proposal 9 before compelling arbitration. 10 This Court also finds that the City of Vallejo decision is inapplicable based on 11 the considerably narrower scope of arbitration under respondent's city charter in 12 comparison with the charter in City of Vallejo. Vallejo's charter required all disputes 13 about employees' "wages, hours, and working conditions" to be arbitrated (12 Ca1.3d 14 at 612 -3, fn. 2, 3), and any dispute relating to terms and conditions of employment 15 that was negotiable under the Meyers -Milias -Brown Act was also arbitrable under 16 that charter. An arbitration taking place under such charter language would be a 17 continuation of a dynamic bargaining session, taking place before an arbitrator. In 18 contrast, the scope of arbitration under respondent's charter is far narrower than the 19 scope of bargaining, and is limited to disputes "pertaining to financial benefits," 20 leaving all other disputes within the scope of bargaining to be resolved by the City 21 Council. Arbitration under respondent's charter therefore can not simply be a 22 continuation of the bargaining process, as was possible under the Vallejo charter. 23 Finally, petitioner's position cannot prevail in view of the relevant Charter 24 provisions' history. In 1982, the voters in respondent City approved a charter 25 amendment which, they were told, would "clear up the ambiguity concerning what is 26 or is not subject to arbitration "; would make issues going to arbitration "well defined 27 and easily understood "; and would "complete[ly] repeal" arbitration "for questions 28 concerning firefighters' working conditions - even safety concerns." That amendment STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 6 1 also narrowed the previously broad scope of arbitrable issues to include only disputes 2 "pertaining to financial benefits." By deleting formerly existing charter provisions 3 which had required arbitration of all disputes relating to wages, hours and working conditions, and which had allowed parties to modify their proposals during 5 arbitration, the charter amendment approved by the voters in 1982 eliminated the 6 previousicharter language which would have allowed an arbitration such as petitioner seeks (i.e. an arbitration in which either or both parties' proposals can be modified, revised, or amended during the arbitration) to occur. The above history of charter 9 revisions -- as well as the voters' decision to make arbitrations under the charter 10 proceed in accordance with C.C.P. §1281.2 — evidences the voters' desire that the 11 substance of arbitrators' authority be limited to financial benefits alone, and tha,. it 12 exclude hours and working conditions; and that arbitration procedures be simple, 3 unambiguous, and based on issues and proposals which are defined in advance of ' 4 arbitration. That desire on the part of the voters would be frustrated were this Court 15 to allow the arbitrator to determine the arbitrability of specific proposals in dispute 16 here. That desire would also be fnistrated were this Court to order an arbitration in 17 which the parties were free to modify their previous proposals, or make new counter 18 proposals, during arbitration, as petitioner urges here. 19 C. Proposals Which This Court Orders Resolved By Arbitration 20 The second principal controverted issue in this proceeding is which contract 21 proposals the parties are to submit to arbitration. The Court finds that the following 22 proposals, which were made by either the petitioner or the respondent during the 23 negotiation process, are arbitrable under Section 27-5 of the Charter of the City of 24 Alameda. These proposals pertain to "financial benefits" as defined in Charter § 27- 25 3(A) and, thus, are arbitrable. The "Declaration of Robert LaGrone in Opposition to Petition to Compel Arbitration" ("LaGrone Declaration") and the "Declaration of Austris Rungis In Opposition to Petition to Compel Arbitration" provide the factual 28 basis for this conclusion. STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. t • I, it • . ti 11 .1 W rk - - • h (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-1) Proposal:2 The regular work week for employees assigned to full-time positions in other than Fire Suppression shall consist of an average of forty (40) hours and such hours to-be worked between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M, Monday through Friday. Time spent on call" or in othe-r department assignments while at required meal and break periods shall be included as part of the stated fitly hours. 2. Union Pro_posal to Amend Section 11.3 (Call Back and Minimum Overtime Requirements) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-2) Proposal: If an employee is held over beyond the end of his or her shift because of emergency conditions for more dean fifteen (15) minutes, the employee will receive a minimum of two (2) hours of work, or if two (2) hours of work is not furnished, a minimum of two (2) hours of pay at time and one-half (1-1/2). 3. Union Proposal to Arnend Section 11.5 (Acting Procedures and Pav) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 7E-3) • Proposal: An employee who has been assigned and has successfully performed the duties of a_lligher dassification fe three (3) shifts er the equivalent number of hours shall thereafter receive the rate of pray attached to such classification for all of the time he or she is assigned to perform such duties. All references to "Sections" are to sections of the "Memorandum of Understanding between City of Alameda and International Association of Firefighters Local 689" for the period January 1, 1993 through December 3 I , 1994 ("MOU"). 2Changes from the MOU are shown by strikeout (deletions) or italics (additions). STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 8 4. Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 (Rates of Pay jMonthly Base Salaries] ) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E -4) Proposal: Fire, figghters 596 1 -1 -95, 5% 1 -1 -96, 4% 1 -1 -97 5. Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 (Rates of Pay Differentials]) , "(As referenced in LaGrone Declaration 1E -5) Proposal: A.O. 9% above top step FF as of 1 -1 -95; Lieut. 18% above top step FF as of 1 -1 -95; Capt. 24% above top step FF as of 1 -1 -95. 6. Union ProTrosal to Amend Section 12.1 (Rates of Pav [Sixth 10 Paragraph]) 11 (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E -6) 12 Proposal: During the above assignments an employee may be temporarily displaced 13 j from such assignment and replaced by an employee on a limited duty 4 assignment made in accordance with Section 253 of this Memorandum of 15 I Understanding. The employee on limited &ay assignment shall receive any 16 1 di f eerential assigned to the position. At the end of such limited duty assignment 17 the displaced employee shall be provided the option of completing the 18 ( remainder of the displaced emplo ee's assignment, which may be extended by 19 the length of such limited duty assignments. Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.2 f Starting Rate) 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration 1E -7) Proposal: For the classification of Firefighter, the entrance salary for a new employee entering City service shall be the minimum salary for that classification, provided, however, that when aalary. If; a new employee has both EMT I -A and Firefighter I certificate, the Fire Chief will STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 9 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the emplo ee be hired at the third step. • - - a. - - - a - 8. City Proposal to Arnend Section 12.3 (Step Increases) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 11E-8) Proposal: The step plan of each salary range shall be applied and interpreted as follows for permanent and probationary employees: The first step shall be the minimum rate and shall normally be the hiring rate for the class. The second step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months (one (1) yearfor employees hired after- July 1, 1996) of paid status at the first step. The third step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months (one (1)yearfor employees hired after July 1, 1996) of paid status at the second step. The fourth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months (one (I)yearfor employees hired after July 1, 1996) of paid status at the rd. step. The fifth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the fourth step. The sixth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the fifth step. The seventh step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the sixth step. Raises to the next step shall be automatic unless the employee's service has not been satisfactory in which event. a raise may be delayed for not more than six (6) months with the approval of the City Manager. STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 10 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 9. City Proposal to Amend Section 13.1 (Flexible Benefit Plan) and (Appendix E) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 11E-9) Proposal: (Subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Paragraph 4 of Appendix E) (b ) The Ciy will allow employes hired a jab, L 1995, who retire to partici a e in the Ciy's medical and dental plans or retirees provided the entployee meets the following requirements: (1) retired employee has twenty (20) years or more of service with the Alameda Fare Department and (2) the retired employee retires r service or disabilay), and (3) the retired an; ee actually draws a pension within one hundred tweny (120) days of separation from the Alameda Fare Department. (c) In addition it is agreed that a retired employee will no toga be eligible to participate in the Ciy's medical plan should the retired employee elect to be covered by another medical plan. Furthermore, it is agreed that a retired employee who once waives his or her participation in the Ciy's medical plan coverage such waiver shall be irrevocable. 10. Union Proposal to Amend Section 13.1 (Flexible Benefit Plan) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-10) Proposal: thli071 wishes to negotiate increases to the contributions made by the city toward the flexible benefits plan as described in sections 13.2, 13.3, 13.5 and 13.6. / STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 11 V 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 . Union Proposal to A.mend Section 13.2 (Dental) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-11) Proposal: The City .shall make the necessary contributions month per eligible employee toward the City's Flexible Benefits to provide thefigiowing dental plan to the employee and eligible dependents. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees. 1) Diagnostic and Preventative 90% 2) Basw Benefits 90% • 3) Crowns, Jackets and Cast Restoration 90% 4) Prosthodontic Bent s 75% 5) Annual Benefit $1,500 per enrollee 6) Ortlwdontics $2,000 lifetime benefit per enrollee. 12. Union Proposal to Add Section 13.6 (Vision Plan) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration ,TE-12) Proposal: The city shall make the necessary contributions per month toward the ci5i's flexible benefit program to provide an optical and eyeglass plan fiir eligible employees and their dependents. 21e proposal fir employees Care is based on a twelve (12) month examination, twelve (12) month lenses and tweny7fflur (24) month frame interval as identified by Plan B e the Vision Service PJi (VSP) with a tweny-five dollar ($25.00) co-payment. 13. Union Proposal to Amend Section 17_2 (Vacation Benefits) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 11E-13) Proposal: Fiftv-six (56) Hour Workweek Employees Six (6) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of one (1) year or more but less thanfive (5) six (6) years prior to such anniversary date. Nine (9) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period offive (5) six (6)- years or more but less thanfifteen (15) STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 12 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3ixtccn (16) years prior to such anniversary date. Twelve (12) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been m the service of the City for a period of fifteen (15) 3ixtccn years or more but less than twenty five (25) years. Fifteen (15) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of twenty five (25) years or more. 14. City Proposal to Amend Section 17.2 (Vacation Benefits) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , ¶E -14) Proposal: Fifty -six (56) Hour Workweek Employees Six (6) shifts One Hundred Twelve (112) hours of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for aperiod of one (1) year or More but less than six (6) years prior to such anniversary date. Nine (9) Shifts One Hundred Sixty Eight (168) hours of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of six (6) years or more but less than sixteen (16) years prior to such anniversary date. Twclvc (12) Two Hundred Twenty Four (224) hours of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of sixteen (16) years or more. 15. i v P osa A (Sick eave Benefits) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration ,1E-15) Proposal: A working day is eight (8) hours for employees who work a forty (40) hour workweek and twcivc (12) eleven point two (11.2) hours for employees who are assigned to a fifty -six (56) h our workweek. ction 1 .1 se .n. • . ra (Corresponding changes would be 2.8 made to Appendix A) STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 13 and Appendix 16. Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.5 (Sick Leave During Probationary Period) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 11E -16) Proposal: 10 the first six (6) rrrefths of employment with - the Cite. I Iowever, after 3ix (6) months` of empleyme-nt with the City, twenty fetes ( 2 (fer the fifty six hour workweek employees) sta fight time hots pair month pay Status requirement has been met: 11 ( 17. Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.1 (Emergency Technical 1 -A Certificate (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-17) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Proposal:. An employee who has a valid and current EMT I A certificate will receive an additional Ninety Eight Dollars ($98.00} two and one haipercent (2.5 %) of a top' step fire ghte�'s base salary per month. It s be the sole resp©x3ibility� of the employee to meet requirement rctatea to utc scssi ©n of thc EMT 1 A ecrtifieatc. c EMS Director will eeordinatc the rccertifieation process. The City agrees to provide all training as required, on duty, and to pay all costs associated with training and licensing. 18. Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.5 and Appendix C (Educational 22 Incentive) 23 24 25 (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-18) Proposal: Appendix C would be deleted in its entirely and replaced with the following: 26 A.) The purpose of this program is to encourage and reward members in 27 the represented classifications for the acquisition and maintenance of 28 higher levels of academic STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) I4 achievement. B.) Requirements Level I - no certificate 1 degree 50 hours /year cf education and training certified as relevant by the Educational Standards Committee. Level II - Attainment of either: (a). AA or AS Degree or (b) Fire Officer I Certi tion (CFSTES) or (c) Fire Science Certi tion and FFII Certification cation (CFS S) no requalfcation. Level III - Attainment of either: (a) BA or BS degree or (b) AA degree and Fire Officer II Certification (CFSTES) or 10 (c) Fire Science Certi cation and Chi4 Officer Certification (CFSTES) 11 no requalfication. 12 1.3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 7 28 Those who quay for the education incentive program shall be compensated at the level attained as a percentage of top step `Firefighters' salary. C) Procedure for A lication Members app ying for educational incentive program shall make such application on the Department provided forms by May 31 fm- the following f fiscal yyear. However, once a member reaches Level II, he /she shall not need to re-apply until such time as applyingfior Level 171 compensation. Once a member attains Level III compensation, he /she shall not need to re -apply for this benefit. D) ,Education Standards Committee An Educational Standards Committee comprised of a Union representative and a .Management representative shall be established and convened annually for the purpose of determining successful completion of the purpose of determining successful completion of the educational level for which the employee is applying. STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 15 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 19. City Proposal to Amend Section 253 (Educational Incentive) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration, 1E-19) Proposal: Only employees hired prior to July 1, 1996 shall be covered by Appendix C attached. 20. Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.6 (Ambulance Differential) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-20) 'Proposal: Two (2) employees assigned to each designated ambulance will each receive -($297-40) per twenty four (21) hour shift:. seven and one half percent (7 596) of top step base firOgliter's salary fir all time served in that positionfrr each pay period. 21. Union Proposal entitled "Suppression Augmentation" (New) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-21) Proposal: Suppression Augmentation: Whenever alternative staffing practices are utilized to cover suppression assignments all members assigned to duty shall be compensated for the increased workload and adverse impacts on safety. Compensation shall be calculated at 2.596 of each employees base salary payabl fiar the entire time the alternative staffing practice is utilized, rounded to the nearest 114 hour. 22. City Proposal to Amend Appendix E ("Agreement Transferring 1082 Pension System Members to PERS") (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration , 1E-22) Proposal: All employees hired after July 1, 1996 shall receive the.fillowing retirement- benefits. PERS Safety 2% at .55 fizI .finnta a as provided an Section 21252.6 of the Government Code ofthe State of Cali ornia, including the following optional ben ts: a) Compensation} b) Section 20835.1 (Limit Prior Service to Members Employed on STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 16 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7 28 Contract Date) c) Section 21361.5 (Loral System Service Credit) d) Sccriort 208-62.8 (Credit for • ; wor;• " ; • e) Section 21263 and 21263.1 (Post- Retirement Survivor Allowance) f) Section 21266 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance to Continue After Remarriage) g) Section 21382.4 (Third level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). Employer will pay employer contribution. (Corresponding changes are proposed to Appendix E, pages 1-2) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration, 1F-2) Proposal: Union representatives who are official representatives of the Union shall be given reasonable time off with pay to attend meetings with management representatives, or to be present at hearings where matters within the scope of representation or grievances are being considered. The use of official time for this purpose shall be reasonable and shall not interfere with the performance of City services. Such employee representatives shall submit through the-Fire Department chain of command a written request for excused absence to the Fire Chief at least forty- eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled meeting whenever possible. Except by mutual agreement, the number of .emp_loyees excused for such purposes shall not exceed three (3). Union representatives may use their accrued vacation leave, compensatory time, and shift trades for the purpose of attending Union conventions, Union conferences and Union seminars. Such vacation leave shall not be counted against the total number of employees STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 who may be on vacation leave at any one time, provided, however, that no more than one (1) employee per shift may be eligible for such vacation leave. Such compensatory time shall not be counted against the total hours allowed per shday. Such shift trades shall not be counted as a part of the total number of trades an employee may make per month. 24. Union Proposal to Amend Section 11.6 (Compensatory Time) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration, IF -8) Proposal: Employees shall be entitled to accrue compensatory time off up to a maximum ofonc hundred forty four (141) hoursfour hundred eigh y (480) hours but may take no more than seventy -two (72) hours of compensatory time off in an one (1) month. Compensatory time an be granted by the Fire Chief or has designated representative on a first come, first served basis. Requests for compensatory time o.. are to be submitted in duplicate on the departmentally provided form. Re sts shall be made within ten (10) shi of the 1 date time e. is requested. arc than one request received .1 1700 hours on the same day will be considered a tie in which case seniority will be the deciding factor. Requests fvr compensatory time of'which requires overtime replacement will only be considered for four (4) hours or more to a maximum off eight (48) hours per shift. Once compensatory time has been requested and reviewed the employee shall be noticed by the Fire Chief or his designated representative whether the request is granted or denied. lithe request is denied, the employee will be notified as to the reason. In the case of compensatory time which has been granted and is canceled by the employee, all members on the shift shall be notified of the availability of the compensatory time and any other request shall be granted based on seniority. Upon an employee's separation from City service, the City will meet any legal obligation it has toward the employee regarding pay off of STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) I8 10 11 12 3 b 15 Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.4 (Illness in the Immediate 16 Family) 17 (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration, IF-14) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 compensatory time. Compensatory time Will 13e requested by an ern lo CC 25. Union Proposal to Amend Section 13.1 (Flexible Benefit Plan) (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration, 4F -9)` d> 26. Proposal: Union wishes to negotiate increases to the contributions made by the City toward the flexible bone is plan as described in sections 13.2 13 13.5, and • 13.6. (As referenced in LaGrone Declaration, IF -1I) Proposal: The City shall continue to provide for all employees an employee assistance program. The cost of such program shall continue to be paid by the City only during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding. Union wishes to increase the number of allowable visits to ten (10) per employee, per 27. Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.1 /Sick Leave Benefits) 28 Proposal: 18.1 Benefits Effective July 2, 1981 regular and probationary employees shall accrue sick leave at the rate of one (1) working day per month, provided they have been in a pay status one hundred sixty (160) straight -time hours that month for forty (40) hour workweek employees and two hundred twenty-four (224) straight -time hours for fifty-six (56) hour workweek employees. Sick leave usage shall not be considered as a privilege which an employee may use at his or her discretion, but shall be allowed only in case of necessity of actual sickness or disability or in the event of an illness in the immediate family. For the purpose of this provision, immediate family means spouse, child or, dependent living within the employee's household. At the City's request, the employee will provide satisfactory STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 evidence of the facts justifying such absence. amily. 'Four tl�e e of this prOVis efl, Immc iatc family means 3p 8u3e, elm er dependent llvin within the employee's heweheli At the City's rc• ucst, the employee will D. The Parties Are To Arbitrate The Above Proposals As They Currently Exist, Without Modification The third principal controverted issue in this proceeding concerns whether the parties have the ability to revise or alter their proposals, or make new counter- proposals, during the arbitration. Petitioner contends that in the arbitration of disputed proposals, either or both parties are free to modify proposals, make new counter - proposals, or otherwise depart from the terms of the proposals exchanged between the parties. This Court does not agree. Such an approach might lead to the arbitration of issues which do not pertain to "financial benefits," and which thus simply are not arbitrable under respondent's city charter. Moreover, the approach urged by petitioner also ignores the intent of the voters of respondent city, as expressed through their rejection of previous charter language which had allowed arbitration to be conducted in that manner, and their approval of charter language which, the voters were told, would cause the issues going to arbitration to be simplified and clarified. Accordingly, this Court orders that the parties are to arbitrate only the proposals as set forth in section C., above, excluding any modifications, revisions, or new counter- proposals thereto. E. Conclusion An order of the Court shall issue ordering respondent City of Alameda to submit the proposals described in paragraph C above to interest arbitration. STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 20 3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 Respondent shall not be compelled to submit any other proposals or any modifications of, or counter proposals to, the proposals described in paragraph C to arbitration. DATED: 1-3- j J PER UDGE, OF THE, SUIOR COU J:\WPD\MNRSW\1821PLEAD\2 I \STMT-ALT. I 2 1 STATEMENT OF DECISION (ALTERNATE) 21 HA MARGULIES' DECLARATION OF MAILING I certify that I am not a party to this cause and that on the date stated below I mailed ( first class postage pre -paid) a copy of the attached to the parties thereto, addressed as follows: Carol Korade, Esq. CITY ATTORNEY 2250 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320 Alameda, CA 94501 -4456 Elizebeth H. Silver, Esq. Wayne K. Snodgrass, Esq. MEYERS, NAVE et al. 777 Davis Street, Suite 300 San Leandro, CA 94577 Alan C. Davis, Esq: Laurie Erdman, Esq. DAVIS, . RENO & COURTNEY 90 New Montgomery Street, Suite 909 San Francisco, CA 94105 I declare under penalty of perjury that the same is true and correct. Executed on Feb.27, 1997 at Oakland, CA. Ed Cranston, Clerk 15 NON - ARBITRABLE PROPOSALS 1. Union Proposal to Amend Section 1.1 (Union Recognition). Current Practice. There are six sworn classifications within the Fire Department. Under Section 1.1, the City has recognized the Petitioner as the majority representative for purposes of meeting and conferring with employees in the classifications of Firefighter, Fire Apparatus Operator, Fire Lieutenant and Fire Captain. Proposal. The Union proposes to add "Fire Inspector, Assistant Fire Marshal, Training Director and E.M.S. Coordinator" to the list of "classifications" for which the Union is the recognized majority representative. 2. City Proposal to Amend Section 10.1 (Hours of Work/Work Schedule). Current Practice. The regular workweek for employees assigned to Supprer:s'on is an average 56 -hour workweek. The work schedule consist of three, 24 -hour on- duty periods, commencing at 8:00 a.m., within a nine day cycle as follows: X = 24 hour on -duty period 0 = 24 hour off -duty period XOXOX0000 repeat cycle XOXOX0000 This schedule provides for ten shifts on -duty and 20 days off -duty most months, with some months having nine shifts and a few having eleven shifts on duty. When personnel work overtime or trade shifts with other employees between the first and third shifts, the result can be up to 72 hours of unbroken on -duty time. Proposal. The City proposal would allow the Fire Chief, upon direction from the City Manager, to institute an alternative work schedule for Suppression personnel. The altemative work schedule would consist of ten and fourteen hour on- duty periods in a twelve day cycle as follows: X = 10 hour on -duty period (8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.) Y = 14 hour on -duty period (6:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m.) 0 = time off between shifts h00YYYY00 repeat cycle VOOYYYY00 EXHIBIT H 3. Assignment Hours). Current Practice. Current practice is to assign normal duties (non - emergency) for personnel assigned to Suppression between the hours of 8 A.M. to 10 P.M., provided that the physical condition of the employee is considered and the total hours of scheduled activities are limited to eight hours in any one shift: Proposal. The Union Proposal would limit the hours in which normal duties can be assigned for Suppression personnel to the hours of 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. Monday through Friday and the hours of 8 A.M. to 12 noon Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The Fire Chief's. representative could elect to exchange up to three hours from these designated time periods to be used during the hours of 5 P.M. to 9 P.M. that same day, but only if the Union agreed upon the programs or projects. 4. City Proposal to Amend Section 10.2 (Hours of Work/Shift Trades) Current Practice. Employees may trade up to three shifts or portions of shifts per month. More than three trades require a written request. Trades of fewer than ten hours do not count as part of the three trades per month. Proposal. The City proposal would delete the exemption for trades of less than ten hours with the result that trades of ten hours or less would count toward the three per month limit. 5. Union Proposal to Amend Section 11.4 (Overtime Call -in Procedures) Current Practice. G.O.B. 2 -41 governs requests for overtime. Section 11.4 of the MOU refers to G.O.B. 2 -41, as adopted February 7, 1991. Proposal. The Union Proposal would update the reference to G.O.B. 20 -41 to G.O.B. 2 -41, as adopted November 2, 1993. 6. City Proposal to Amend Section 11.4 (Overtime Call -in Procedures) Current Practice. G.O.B. 2 -41 governs requests for overtime. Section 11.4 of the MOU refers to G.O.B. 2 -41, as adopted February 7, 1991. Proposal. The City Proposal would update the reference to G.O.B. 20 -41 to G.O.B. 2 -41, as adopted November 2, 1993. 2 7 Union Proposal to Amend Section 113 (Life Insurance). Current Practice. The City provides each employee with a $15,000 life insurance program. Emuosal. Union proposal would increase life insurance for each employee to $40,000. [NOTE: The Arbitrator considered this proposal as part of item 1 O. 8. Union Proposal to Amend Section 17.1 (Vacation Scheduling). Current Practice. Vacation selection is currently made in order of decreasing department seniority in rounds. In this process all selections must be in groups of three shifts which do not split a shift cycle. After this process is completed, the Fire Chief has made it a practice to allow employees to pick single shifts in vacant slots provided it is mutually beneficial to the employee and the City. When picking rounds of vacation, three slots for each three shift cycle is provided. Of these open slots, only one may be selected by an officer (Lieutenant or Captain). Proposal. The Union Proposal would allow employees to break three shift cycles and repick one or two shift vacations in open slots after the rounds of vacation selection for three shift cycles have been completed. 9. City Proposal to Amend Section 17.1 (Vacation Scheduling) Current Practice. The current practice is as described in paragraph F(12) above. Proposal. After the first round of vacation selection, in which employees can only pick in groups of three shift cycles, the City Proposal would allow employees to use any remaining vacation to pick available single' shift slots. After the vacation selection process is completed, Suppression employees could only request vacation changes in groups of three, except by mutual agreement between the employee and the Fire Chief. 10. City Proposal to Amend Section 18.3 (Doctor's Certificate or Other Proof of Sick Leave). Current Practice. Employees who are absent more than five consecutive work days or three consecutive shifts (Suppression employees) must submit a physician's certificate. 3 Proposal. The City proposes to amend section 18.3 to require a physician's certificate if an employee is absent more than three consecutive work days or two consecutive shifts. 11. Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.6 (Medical and/or Dental_.Appointment Leave). Current Practice. Suppression employees do not work 20 days a month. It is the practice that they schedule medical or dental appointments on one of their days off when possible. When such appointments cannot be scheduled on the employee's day off without undue delay or for other good cause, the employee is required to have the doctor or dentist attest to the scheduling need on a form provided by the Fire Chief. Proposal. The Union Proposal would delete the requirement to have a doctor or dentist attest to the fact that there would be undue delay or other good cause for the appointment to be scheduled on one of the employee's ten working days a months rather than one of the employee's 20 days off a month. 12. Union Proposal to Amend Section 19.6 (Funeral Leave) Current Practice. Employees are required to have one or more years of uninterrupted service with the City to qualify for paid time off necessary to make arrangements for or to attend a funeral for a member of the immediate family. Proposal. The Union Proposal would delete the qualifying requirement of one or more years of uninterrupted service with the City. 13. City Proposal to Amend Section 25.4 (Promotions, paragraph 1) Current Practice. Current practice is to require employees wishing to take promotional examinations to have a specified number of years of service with the City of Alameda Fire Department in order to be eligible to participate in the examination. No service credit is allowed, regardless of previous professional experience, for service in other departments. Proposal. The City Proposal would allow service credit for employees who have completed probation and were hired from a firefighter lateral eligibility list at a ratio of one year of Alameda Fire Department service credit for every two years with another qualifying Fire Department. The service credit would only be for the purposes of participating in the promotional examination. 4 14. City Proposal to Amend Section 25.4 (Promotions. paragraph 3) Current Practice. The Personnel Department develops questions for promotional examinations from the job descriptions. The MOU provides that the job descriptions for the four classifications will be updated by August 1993. Proposal. The City proposal would eliminate the language regarding updating job descriptions by August 1993. 15. Union Proposal Regarding Staffing (New) Current Practice. The Fire Chief sets the staffing level with policy direction concerning the level of service to be provided from the City Manager and the City Council. The staffing level (as of 1995) was a minimum of 24 Suppression employees on duty at all times. The staffing configuration was: (a) six fire companies which consists of four engines (two are aerial ladder trucks) each with a minimum crew of three for fire calls and a minimum crew of two in service for medical calls; (b) three ambulance companies each provided with a minimum crew of two; and (c) an Assistant Chief serves as a responding shift supervisor. Proposal. The Union Proposal would add a new section to the MOU which would specify the level of service to be provided as well as the specific method of providing service by specifying the exact staffing to be provided (e.g., one Captain or Lieutenant, one Apparatus Operator and one Fire fighter), thus restricting flexibility in reasoning resources in their configurations. EHS:kag J \WPD\MNRSW\l82\ lSC I9\EXH_H.020 5 Lt. Michael D'Orazi 1.A.F.F. Local #689 Alameda Firefighters Assn 635 Pacific Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Lt. D'Orazi: City of Alameda ® California August 21, 1997 On March 19, 1997, the City of Alameda submitted a Last, Best and Final Response Offer (off the record) to International Association of Firefighters. Local #689 rejected that offer and in discussions with City staff indicated a number of areas of concern. Recent articles in the press have quoted you as wishing to start the process fresh. In the hope that we can reach final resolution before we resume arbitration, I am resubmitting the Council's previous authorization with a number of adjustments which address many of the concerns your organization expressed. 1 wish to make it clear that the revised offer represents the City's final attempt to bring to resolution our negotiations and is an alternative to proceeding with arbitration and a possible resolution by the voters of Alameda of'the issues. Because the arbitration is scheduled to resume on September 22, this offer will remain open until September 8. JAI':jsm Sine City Manager's Office City Hall, Rom 320 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, GSA 94501 (510)74S-4521 pi!_e..d nn reeyclod psp,r James . Flint City Manager MCI EXHIBIT Lt. Michael.D'Orazi I.A.F.F. Local #689 Alameda Firefighters Assn 635 Pacific Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Lt. D'Orazi: RE: City of Alameda • California August 21, 1 997 Off The Record Response Offer to IAFF Local #689 from the City of Alameda All Memorandum of Understanding provisions in effect as of December 31, 1994 shall remain unchanged except as follows: Term of Contract: January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999. Section 13.5 Employee Assistance Program Increase number of visits allowed from seven (7) to ten (10) visits annually. 3. Section 25.1 Emergency Medical Technician 1 -A Certificate shall be amended as of January 1, 1995 to increase compensation from $98.00 per month to $108.00 per month. Section 25.6 Ambulance Differential shall be amended as of January 1, 1995, to increase compensation for assignment to the Ambulance from $29.40 per 24 -hour shift to $32.40 per 24 -hour shift. City Manager's Office City Hall, Room 320 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 748 -4521 Printed on recycled paper A. \ WORK' . ALL Lt. Michael D'Orazi August 21, 1 997 Page 2 4. Section 12,1 Rate of Pays: Across the board wage increase: a. January 1, 1995 January 1, 1996 January 1, 1997 January 1, 1998* January 1, 1999* OR January 1, 1998* July 1, 1998* January 1, 1999* July 1, 1999* o% 3% 2.5% CPI 0 -4% (SF - Bay Area 1982 -84 = 100 Nov 96 through Nov 97) CPI 0 -4% (SF - Bay Area 1982 -84 = 100 Nov 97 through Nov 98) *CPI or 1.5/1.5 each year 1998 and 1999 with the Union to choose by October 1, 1997 which wage setting approach they wish to utilize. h. Differential Between Ranks on January 1, 1997 differential between ranks will be adjusted upwards as follows (worksheet 3/3/97 attached): Fire Apparatus Operator top step by 3% of Firefighter top step. Lieutenant top step by 4% of Firefighter top step Captain top step by 3% of Firefighter top step. 5. Section 25.15 Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet Industrial Supply Center. IAFF Local 689 agrees to the implementation of fire and ambulance services for the Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) at no additional compensation. 6. Section 25.16 Intubation. The Union agrees to implement an Advanced Airway Endotracheal Intubation program. Employees only in the classification of Firefighter who successfully complete and maintain training and certification to perform Endotracheal Intubation shall receive an additional increase in EMT pay of $100.00 per month. This $100 a month stipend only applies while the employee is in the classification of Firefighter. Training will be mandatory for all employees in the classification of Firefighter. Other classifications may receive intubation training on a voluntary basis if space permits. It is understood that the increased differential between ranks is the only compensation to be provided for classifications other than Firefighter for successfully completing and maintaining Endotracheal Intubation Certification. Lt. Michael D'Orazi August 21, 1997 Page 3 In the event that the City fails to provide an intubation program by October 1, 1997, employees in the classification of Firefighters will receive an additional $100 per month EMT pay in lieu of Endotracheal Intubation pay. This in lieu of additional EMT pay will continue until employees in the classification of Firefighter are provided an on -duty Endotracheal Intubation Training and Certification program. 7. All tentative agreements between the City and the Union reached during the negotiations process shall be included in the replacement M.O.U. 8. Section 26,3 Educational Incentive Effective July 1, 1997 the Educational Incentive Program will be inapplicable for all employees hired after July 1, 1997 and the current Program will be placed in a side letter. 9. Section 14. Retirement Plan For the duration of this Memorandum of Understanding, the present Retirement Plan shall be maintained at the benefit level described in City Ordinance 1082 and the City of Alameda's contract of January 1, 1957, as amended, with Public Employees' Retirement System. The City will allow any employee hired prior to January 1, 1997 and retired under the 1082 Retirement plan to participate in the City's medical plans provided that the employee meets the following qualifications: (1) The employee must have worked for the City a minimum of fifteen (15) years and taken a service or disability retirement. (2) The full cost of a retired employee's participation in one of the medical plans will be deducted from the employee's retirement check. For employees hired after January 1, 1997, the provisions of Sections 4(a) and (b) of the 1082 Agreement shall only be applicable if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) The employee has 20 years or more services with the Alameda Fire Department and (2) retire (for service or disability), and (3) actually draw a PERS pension within one hundred twenty (120) days of separation from the Alameda Fire Department. In addition it is agreed that an employee will no longer be eligible to participate in the City's . medical plan should the employee elect to be covered by another medical plan. Furthermore, it is agreed that an employee who once waives his or her participation in the City's medical plan coverage such waiver shall be irrevocable. The parties agree to be bound by the Agreement Transferring 1082 Pension System Members to PERS, entered into May 31, 1990. Lt. Michael D'Orazi August 21, 1997 Page 4 If the foregoing conforms with your understanding, please indicate your acceptance and approval in the appropriate section below. The City will then prepare a new Memorandum of Understanding for signatures. Dated: APPROVED AND ACCEPTED: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL #689 Very Truly Yours, CITY OF ALAMEDA tif 4d By: City M nager By: By: ARMON BARSAMIAN, Esq. Arbitrator and Mediator 5551 Shooting Star Road Pollock-Pines, California 95726 (530) 644-5060 IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XXVII OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA In the Matter of a Controversy ) ) between ) ) ALAMEDA FIRE FIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION,) LOCAL NO. 689, IAFF, AFL-CIO, ) ARBITRATOR'S ) and ) OPINION AND AWARD ) CITY OF ALAMEDA. ) ) Involving interest arbitration. ) (C.S.M.C.S. Case No. 95-1-427) ) ) This Arbitration arises pursuant to Article XXVII of the Charter of the City of Alameda (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and is between the City and Alameda Fire Fighters' Association, Local No. 689, IAFF, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as the "Union"). The Arbitrator was selected from a panel submitted by the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service, which has assigned Case No. 95-1-427 to this matter. A total of nineteen (19) days of hearing were held between EXHIBIT J. October 23, 1996 and January 27, 1998, inclusive. All days of hearing were held in Oakland, California. The parties were afforded full opportunity for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the introduction of relevant exhibits, and for argument. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs. The Union's brief was received on April 10, 1998; the City's brief was received on April 21, 1998. The matter stood submitted for decision as of the latter date. APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Union: Davis & Reno, by ALAN C. DAVIS, Esquire and DAVID HOFFMAN, Esquire (on brief), 22 Battery Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, California 94111. On behalf of the City: Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, by ELIZABETH H. SILVER, Esquire 777 Davis Street, Suite 300, San Leandro, California 94577. INTRODUCTION A. BACKGROUND The most recent Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the parties expired on December 31, 1994 (Joint Exhibits ["J.X."] 2 and 2A). The parties commenced negotiations for a new MOU on November 14, 1994, and held a number of meet and confer sessions between that date and September 26, 1995 (City Exhibit ["C.X."] 2 37). On October 19, 1995, the Union submitted its Statement of Impasse (J.X. 4; C.X. 37). A mediation meeting held on November 30, 1995, failed to resolve the impasse, and thereafter, pursuant to Article XXVII, Sections 27 -5 and 27 -6 of the City Charter (J.X. 1), the dispute concerning financial benefits was submitted to arbitration. The arbitration commenced on October 23, 1996. Following the disposition of certain preliminary matters, the City took the position that it was willing to submit 22 proposals to arbitration, which proposals the City considered as meeting the definition of "financial benefits" pursuant to Section 27 -3 of the Charter. The City was not willing to submit all proposals to arbitration or to let the Arbitrator decide what was arbitrable. The Union offered to proceed on issues that the City conceded were arbitrable; however, the City representatives left the hearing room. Pursuant to his long - standing policy of not continuing with a hearing if one party walks out of the room, the Arbitrator adjourned the hearing indefinitely. (See, generally, Transcript Volume I.) The Union then petitioned the Alameda Superior Court for an order compelling arbitration. On January 3, 1997, a hearing was held before Judge Sandra Margulies, and on February 28, 1997, Judge 'After hearing argument, the Arbitrator ruled that he would not preclude the Union` from presenting any of its proposals and the evidence thereon; that he would take evidence and, when reviewing the entire record and writing his decision, would decide whether or not the evidence meets the Charter definition of "financial benefit." (Tr. Vol. I: 45-47) 3 Margulies issues her Order granting the Union's Petition in part and denying it in part (J.X.5). Simultaneously, Judge Margulies issued her Statement of Decision finding, inter alia, that 27 proposals were arbitrable (J.X. 6). The Court also ordered that: ... the parties are to arbitrate only the proposals as set forth in section C., above, excluding any modifications, revisions or new counter- proposals thereto. "2 (J.X. 6, p. 20. Emphasis added) B PEELIMEABIAIRTMEEa 1. Term of Award In their briefs, both parties touched on this issue. Among other things, the City argues, and the evidence supports a finding, that the City never discussed with the Union financial benefits for any year beyond 1995 (Tr. Vol. VI: 936 -7, 943 -4), and that, while the Union eventually proposed a salary increase for 1995, 1996 and 1997, the history of the Union's salary proposals shows that it was not until after impasse was declared that the 3 -year term for the proposed new MOU materialized (C.Xs. 32, 34, 36). The City further argues that, while the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act and the City Charter are silent regarding the term of an arbitrator's award, the Arbitrator here would only have 2To the Arbitrator, this language is critically important. While the Arbitrator is free to compromise the proposals, if warranted by the record evidence, his authority to do so is limited to the specifics of each proposal. This limitation on arbitral authority concerns two matters discussed briefly below; the term of the MOU and the question concerning the Flint Letters (Union Exhibit [ "UX "] 36). 4 jurisdiction and authority to issue an award for calendar year 1995 but for its stipulation that his award could also cover calendar years 1996 and 1997. The Union, of course, vehemently opposes the City's assertions, arguing, inter alia, that the City's position is contrary to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the City Charter and the Court's Order and Statement of Decision. The Union also asserts that the Arbitrator has the authority to, and should, issue an award mandating salary increases beyond calendar year 1997, given the City's conduct in the past. Unfortunately, both parties, but particularly the Union, have missed the mark. More than Meyers-Milias-Brown, more than the Charter, it is Judge Margulies' Statement of Decision which sets the parameters of arbitral authority and jurisdiction in this case. The Court set forth with specificity 27 proposals to be arbitrated by the parties and decided by the Arbitrator, and while the Arbitrator concedes that, based on his view of the record evidence, he has the authority to determine which, if any, proposals may be compromised, he must exercise such authority so as not to run afoul of the Court's directive; i.e., "excluding any modifications, revisions, or new counter-proposals thereto." Here, Paragraph C.4. of the Court's Statement of Decision as regards the Union's Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 as to Monthly Base Salaries sets forth three specific percentage increases for 5 three specific years. (Set forth in full, infra.) While the Arbitrator has the authority to compromise the proposed percentage increases, he does not have the authority to extend his decision beyond 1997. To do so would violate the Court's directive and create a situation where the Arbitrator has exceeded his authority. Accordingly, the term of award will be for calendar years 1995, 1996 and 1997. 2. letter The James A. Flint Letters: During the hearing, the Union introduced into evidence a from City Manager JAMES A. FLINT to Lt. MICHAEL D'ORAZI dated August 21, 1997 (U.X. 36). Attached to the one-page cover letter was a four-page letter to D'ORAZI also dated August 21, 1997, and was referenced as "Off the Record Response Offer to IAFF Local #689 from the City of Alameda." The Flint Letters were the subject of considerable testimony and argument during the hearing, especially as to whether or not the proposal letter was in fact "off the record." While the Arbitrator is well satisfied from the totality of the record evidence that the Flint Letters were intended by the City to be off the record, were received and understood by the Union as being off the record, and in no way lost their status as off the record communications, they are rendered wholly irrelevant and immaterial in consequence of the Court's Statement of Decision. The hearing in this case resumed on June 17, 1997, some 6 three and a half months following the Court's Order and Statement of Decision. The Flint Letters were issued between the two hearing dates in June and when the hearing reconvened in September. The Flint Letters represent "modifications, revisions, or new counter- proposals ..." to the proposals the parties were ordered to arbitrate ". . as set forth in section C., above, ..." Accordingly, the Flint Letters have been disregarded by the Arbitrator in reaching his decisions in this case. 3. Format of Decision: During the hearing, the parties agreed that the issue concerning ability to pay would be the final issue to be arbitrated. That made sense. However, for purposes of this decision, it is reasonable to dispose of that question first as it cuts across all aspects of financial benefits being considered by the Arbitrator. Accordingly, at the outset, the Arbitrator will discuss and dispose of the ability to pay issue, and then will follow Judge Margulies' Statement of Decision. DISCUSSION AND OPINION A. THE QUESTION OF ABILITY TO PAY During the hearing, the City limited the scope of this issue to calendar year 1995 (Tr. Vols. II: 99-101; XVIII: 2916-18). Regardless of how narrow the issue, it is nonetheless extremely 7 critical. Further, it goes without saying that it is the City's burden to prove by cogent evidence that it had the inability to pay for increases in wages and other financial benefits. Briefly, the City's evidence is that any increase in financial benefits must be financed by a decrease in expenditures with a concomitant reduction in services, an increase in revenues, and/or the use of reserves. Historically, the City has funded salary increases by reducing expenditures, as was done, for example, for the MOU's with the APOA, Polj- Management and Fire Management units. They were funded by 1% budget reductions in eleven departments along with some additional revenue sources (C.X. 22). With respect to increasing or raising revenues, the City's evidence is that Propositions 4 and 218, as well as the "reasonable cost of providing the service" limitation found in Government Code Section 50076, place constraints on its ability to do so (C.X. 121). Finally, with respect to the use of reserves, the City's evidence is that, while there is no legal requirement on the City to maintain any general fund reserves, in 1989, the City Council established a target for reserves of 25% of operating expenditures (C.X. 115). Moreover, general fund reserves have historically not been used to fund general operating expenses. While 25% of operating expenditures has been the goal since 1989, which was formalized in 1997, that goal has never been met (Tr. Vol. XVIII: 8 2851, 2861-62. See, also, C.Xs.95, 101, 102 and 117.) Reserves are maintained, the City points out, to tide it over in cases of emergencies, to help pay expenses during "dry periods," for consideration when the City seeks to issue debt, and as a source of income from the investment earnings. Other cities have general fund reserve policies ranging from 5% of operating expenses to 100% of discretionary general fund revenues (C.X. 116. See, also, C.X. 24) . The City asserts that 25% is not unusual given the policies of the cities shown on City Exhibit 116. In anticipation of the Union's argument that the City can use general fund reserves to pay for the wage and benefit increases the Union is seeking, the City asserts that the Arbitrator should reject such argument for several reasons. First, the evidence is uncontroverted that the City has traditionally funded wage and benefit increases by reducing expenditures rather than using general fund reserves. Second, there are not "extra" monies in the general fund reserve, and the City's long-standing policy, which has not yet been reached, is that reserves should be 25% of operating expenditures. Finally, Mr. GERALD BACHECKI's testimony on this issue is incompetent hearsay, and his report (U.X. 87) quotes from or refers to several alleged documents, none of which was placed in evidence 9 by the Union. Even assuming that 5% of operating expenditures is considered the minimum' general fund reserve level for rating purposes, as BACHECKI testified, it is clearly within the City Council's power to determine its own reserve level. The City also presented evidence concerning a number of "unique economic challenges" which, argues the City, make it more important than ever to maintain general fund reserves. The Finance Director had identified those programs or issues for the City Council (C.X. 123), one of which is the potential loss of approximately $1.6 million per year in general fund revenues if the voters fail to ratify the 2% increase in the utility users tax approved in May 1995. (See, also, C.Xs.102, 104 and 121.) Other "challenges" to the City include the cost of the "1079 Pension Plan" ($3.1 million per year); the cost of providing municipal services to Alameda Point ($5 million per year); possible deregulation of electric service which could impact the annual contribution to the general fund; debt service on City buildings ($800,000 per year); the cost of upgrading the infrastructure at Alameda Point ($106 million); and the loss of the one -half cent sales tax for transportation improvements. The reduction in the Bureau of Electricity transfers or contributions to the general fund must also be considered. (J.X. 1. See, also, C.Xs,81 and 82 and Tr. Vols. XVI and XIX). The City concludes by arguing that the Union has failed to 10 present competent evidence to rebut the City's evidence of its inability to pay the proposed increases. Indeed, the only evidence presented by the Union was the testimony and report of BACHECKI who has testified in arbitration proceedings before, but never for a public agency (Tr. Vol. XIX; U.X. 86). Mr. BACHECKI's testimony and report, the City asserts, should be given little weight. Much of the discussion in the report and BACHECKI's testimony about it, is based on hearsay evidence which, if considered competent, is simply wrong in many cases. Mr. BACHECKI's conclusions should be disregarded, because he was never qualified as an expert witness and, from his evident lack of knowledge of constitutional and statutory law affecting cities' ability to raise revenues and his reliance on newspaper articles as his source of information, would probably not have been qualified if a request had been made. The Union asserts that the City has presented no evidence to support its claim that it had no ability to pay for reasonable salary and benefit increases in 1995. In fact, it is fair .to say that the City has not disputed the reasonableness of many, if not most, of the Union's salary and benefit proposals, while insisting that it has no ability to pay. The Arbitrator, argues the Union, must examine not only the reasonableness of the parties' proposals, but evaluate the evidence on the City's ability to pay and weigh this factor in the inquiry as they determine to be appropriate. 11 The Union further asserts that the record evidence demonstrates that the City has systematically understated its revenues and overstated its costs, and that the City has more than ample unrestricted and undesignated reserves and other monies to fully fund the Union's proposals. The Union's evidence in this regard is the testimonial and documentary evidence offered by and through BACHECKI. Mr. BACHECKI's analysis of the City's financial condition is based on its own financial reports, which included the Comprehensive Audited Financial Reports (CAFR's) for fiscal years ending June 30, 1990 through June 30, 1997. The CAFR's were supplemented with additional relevant documents. Mr. BACHECKI noted the conservative nature of the City's budgeting practices, and, while his exhibits are consistent with the testimony of City witnesses concerning an economic downturn in 1995, his report points out that the City had a positive net variance for fiscal years 1990 - 1997. Net variance is the discrepancy between the revenue-expenditure difference projected by the City in its annual budget and the actual revenue-expenditure difference, and a positive net variance means the City would be in a better financial position at year's end than it actually budgeted. In every year since 1993, the City's actual revenues exceeded those budgeted, and in every year from 1990 until 1997, City expenditures were less than budgeted. 12 Mr. BACHECKI noted that, in 1994, the general fund's unreserved balance dropped to $2,000,000, but subsequently recovered. In addition, he noted that the City's unreserved fund balances as a percentage of City expenditures were substantially above 5% for several years, dropped to 6.72% in 1995, and immediately rebounded. In 1997, the unreserved general fund balance was 11.8% of annual expenditures. Mr. BACHECKI's report also notes that the Special Revenue funds balances are sufficient to ensure that General Fund money will not have to be used to supplement any deficiencies in Special Revenue funds. That eliminates another potential drain on the General Fund, leaving more funds available for fire fighter contract purposes. Moreover, the City's Bureau of Electricity could easily transfer more money to the General Fund. Indeed, there is no cap on the maximum amount that can be transferred; the Public Utility Board uses a completely subjective process to select the transfer amount. With respect to the Golf Course and Sewer Service Funds, the Union's evidence is that, between 1990 and 1997, those funds transferred out totals of $1,531,000 and $2,612,000, respectively. Even after such transfers, as of June 1997, the Golf Course Fund had retained earnings of $5,100,000, and the Sewer Service Fund had $6,700,000 in retained earnings. Both funds, argues the Union, are solvent and fiscally secure. 13 As regards the Internal Service funds, BACHECKI suggests that the City may have placed excessive reserves into these funds. The City, then, can afford to place smaller amounts into these funds in future years, or even transfer monies back to the general fund. Either way, additional money would then be available for financial benefits here. In conclusion, the Union argues that, without considering any other source of unrestricted and unreserved funds, the General Fund surplus for fiscal year 1997 of $1,928,704 provides the City with the ability to pay for wage increases that exceed proposals presented by the Union. No reasonable analysis of the financial data supports a conclusion that unrestricted funds are not available for the salary and benefit increases proposed by the Union. As mentioned above, this issue is limited to calendar year 1995. In consequence thereof, an exhaustive analysis is unnecessary. Much of the evidence presented by the parties, as well as counsels' arguments based thereon, failed to recognize the limited nature of the "ability to pay" question. For the most part, the hearing progressed as though this issue concerned 1995, 1996 and 1997. It doesn't! Therefore, the Arbitrator has attempted to limit his examination of the record evidence to what he considers to be relevant and material as regards calendar year 1995. All other 14 evidence has been disregarded for purposes of disposing of this issue. Another point that must be made is how the Arbitrator must look at this "snapshot" of 1995. The parties commenced negotiations on November 14, 1994, and continued for approximately one year before impasse was declared by the Union in the Fall of 1995. During the entire period of the meet and confer process, the City refused to discuss any of the cost items proposed by the Union. Basically, the City's response to every proposal involving a "financial benefits" increase was the same; if the proposal was a cost item, the City's chief spokesperson was precluded from discussing it, because the City was unable to pay for any such increases. Presumably, the City's posture during these negotiations was based upon its analysis and interpretation of the relevant financial data at the time, and that is precisely how the Arbitrator must consider the evidence. Any evidence concerning the City's financial situation on which it could not possibly have relied during 1995 is whol y irrelevant and immaterial. Simply put, later-developed financial data, whether or not valid, cannot be used to support a bargaining position taken in 1995. In a number of respects, the Arbitrator agrees with the City concerning certain "shortcomings" to BACHECKI's testimony and report. However, it is nonetheless very useful and, in any event, 15 the City has the burden of proof here, so that is where the analysis must begin. Among other things, the City asserts that it has "historically" funded salary increases by reducing expenditures. That, however, is simply a matter of choice or financially reasonable, depending on the and may not be fiscally circumstances. To the Arbitrator, maintaining the flexibility needed to be able to make reasonably sound financial decisions is of paramount importance. This argument, then, is not persuasive. Also unpersuasive is the similar assertion that general fund reserves have "historically" not been used to fund genc:al operating expenses. Again, maintaining an historical practice is merely a matter of choice. That is hardly a compelling argument that, in all cases, such practice must be continued. Moreover, while the Arbitrator fully understands and appreciates the need to maintain sufficient reserves, and while he would never presume to suggest that 25% of operating expenditures is excessive or otherwise unreasonable,' he is not convinced that the City must, or should, stubbornly adhere to this "long-standing policy" to the detriment of one of its most important group of employees performing a critically important city function.' It is 'Perhaps the City is unreasonable in its target of 25%. After all, that goal has never been attained. 'The City presented evidence and argument on what it considers to be unique economic challenges requiring that even greater attention be paid to the maintenance of general fund reserves. It is difficult for the Arbitrator to determine how, if at all, those 16 of no moment that the City has never used general fund reserves to pay for wage and benefit increases which have been agreed upon following adoption of the budget. Such historical practices are not sacrosanct. The City further argues that Propositions 4 and 218 Impact its ability to raise revenues. For the limited scope of the issue here, the arguments advanced are without merit. Proposition 218 was passed in November 1996. While the City may have given thought to its potential impact, if passed, during the 1995 negotiations, it was not yet "law." Any impact Proposition 218 might have on the City's ability to raise revenue was, at best, speculative. Indeed, even the provision which requires validation of taxes imposed or increased without voter approval after January 1, 1995, cannot be relied upon by the City as a basis for its attitude concerning salary and benefit increases during 1995. It is pure speculation to argue about what the voters may or may not do about validation of the 2% increase in the utility users tax which was approved in May 1995. That vote is scheduled for November 1998, and the Arbitrator will not base his decision on what might be.5 challenges relate to 1995, or if they were even relied upon during negotiations. 5This issue is a good example of the City attempting to use after-acquired knowledge to support its argument of inability to pay for 1995. The City was aware of the "potential" impact since October 1996. It could not have relied on such speculation, even if appropriate to do so, during the 1995 negotiations. 17 Nor is the Arbitrator convinced that, given the limited scope of the issue, Proposition 4 and the "reasonable cost of providing the service" statute are applicable to 1995. As a matter of fact, from the totality of the record evidence on this issue, the Arbitrator seriously doubts that such matters were truly of any concern to the City during 1995. In any event, all of the above notwithstanding, for the City to have granted some kind of salary and/or benefits increase(s) for 1995 would not have required the raising of revenue. Something was done for the police by way of "retention pay;" something, therefore, could have been done for the Union. In sum, the Arbitrator finds and concludes that the City had, at least to some extent, the ability to pay for salary and/or benefits increases for 1995. While BACHECKI's testimony and report are not accepted in full for some of the reasons advanced by the City, such evidence does help in finding that the City has not fully met its burden. To be sure, the City was not necessarily in the best of financial condition that year, but having granted retention 'pay to police officers and sergeants requires, at the very least, some equality of treatment for the fire fighters. B. PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURT'S STATEMENT OF DECISION 1 Union Proposal to Amend Section 10.1 Mork Schedule Paragraph 1) Proposal: The regular work week for employees assigned 6Changes from the current language of the MOU are shown by strikeout (deletions) or italics (additions). 18 to full-time positions in other than Fire Suppression shall consist of an average of forty (40) hours and such hours to be worked between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Time spent "on call" or in other department assignments while at required meal and break periods shall be included as part of the stated forty hours. The Union's evidence is that the City requires fire fighters working 40-hour weekly schedules to carry radios and pagers, and to be on call for emergencies and other duties during unpaid meal periods. This practice, according to Lt. D'ORAZI's testimony, was verified with one of the Deputy Fire Chiefs. Lt. D'ORAZI also testified that, according to his research, the Department of Labor regulations entitle fire fighters to be compensated for this "on call" time, and the City compensates police officers during meal breaks. The Union asserts that the testimony of Lt. EDWARDS contradicts the estimates testified to by Chief LaGRONE. Lt. EDWARDS testified, inter alia, that, as a fire fighter who has worked a 40-hour shift for three and one-half years, he is interrupted during on-call periods four to five times per week for phone calls, and that he has had several emergency response or fire suppression calls. He adds that he can sometimes shift his lunch period to compensate for an interruption. Fire fighters who work the 40-hour per week shifts receive a 10% to 11% pay differential. The Union points out that Chief LaGRONE's explanation for this differential "changed" (Tr. 19 Vol. II: 167-170). Moreover, argues the Union, while the testimony of Lt. EDWARDS and Lt. D'ORAZI, to some extent, agree with Chief LaGRONE's testimony, the Chief's overall description of on-call assignments is inaccurate. If the City wants on-call phone coverage and backup for its fire suppression crews, it should compensate the affected employees for the time which is subject to City restrictions and preemption. There is simply no rational basis, the Union asserts, for compensating police officers, but not fire fighters, for meal periods which are restricted and routinely interrupted for City business. The City's evidence is that the four office personnel take a 30-minute lunch break sometime during the workday, for which they are not compensated. These employees are free to use their lunch break as they see fit. They are actually required to respond during this period about once a year. The City points out that even Lt. EDWARDS admitted that some of the phone calls he receives at work are personal, and that he doesn't really pay attention to how long the interruptions are. Lt. EDWARDS also conceded that he is able to take more than a 30- minute lunch break and is able to reschedule his meal if he wishes. The City argues that overtime costs of between $300 to $1,500 a year will be incurred if this proposal is included in the award. The City's practice is reasonable, and the office personnel are already compensated for the office assignment by way of a 20 differential of either 1O% or 11%. Additional compensation is unnecessary. Undeniably, this proposal is not a significant cost item. That fact, however, does not mean the Arbitrator will necessarily look favorably on this, or any other, proposal for inclusion in his award. Moreover, the City is correct when it argues that the issue before the Arbitrator is not what the Fair Labor Standards Act requires. Clearly, if the matter is covered by that Act, it will be covered regardless of what is or is not included in the MOU. In any event, the Arbitrator rejects this Union proposal. The record evidence is clear that the office personnel who work the subject schedule have enough flexibility to adjust their meal periods if interrupted, and that such interruptions are insignificant over the long term. The office differentials of 1O% and 11% are sufficient compensation for the office assignment. Accordingly, the Arbitrator rejects this Union proposal. 2. Union Proposal to Amend Section 11.3 (Call Back and Minimum Overtime Requirements) Proposal: If an employee is held over beyond the end of his or her shift because of emergency conditions, tui MU Lhan i Lee (1Z) , the employee will receive a minimum of two (2) hours of work, or if two (2) hours of work is not furnished, a minimum of two (2) hours of pay at time and one-half (1-1/2). The Union's evidence is that Section 11.3 was originally added to the MOU in conjunction with Section 11.2, and that the current City practice is to pay fire fighters for up to 15 minutes of overtime and to offer at least two hours' additional work or 21 overtime pay after 15 minutes of overtime. Lt. D'ORAZI testified that, based on his review of fire fighters' MOU's from other jurisdictions, no MOU had such a 15- minute overtime exclusion. The same is true for the City's MOU's with the police and the non- public safety employees. The Union argues that Section 11.3 will no longer be necessary if the City fulfills its commitment to strike Section 11.2 from the MOU. Also, Chief LaGRONE's opinions and cost estimates are unrealistic and purely speculative. Further, supervisors already have the option of sending a relief crew out before a shift ends, so that adequately guards the City against any misuse of the Union's proposed overtime rule by fire fighters. In sum, the City, argues the Union, failed to present persuasive evidence in support of its cost projections. The Union, on the other hand, presented three credible witnesses, all of whom agreed that the City's estimates were high. The City's opposition to this proposal should be disregarded. The City's evidence is that it opposed this Union proposal because of the estimated cost to the City and the potential for abuse. The City points out that the Union was unable to point to any other employee group that receives an automatic payment of two hours of overtime for only a few minutes of work. The Fair Labor Standards Act and decisions thereunder provide a de minimus test to such cases. The deletion of the phrase "for more than fifteen {15) 22 minutes", argues the City, is not necessary to assure payment of overtime for one to 15 minutes. What it will do is provide payment of two hours of overtime for only a few minutes of overtime work. The Union failed to present any rationale for the proposed change. It should be rejected by the Arbitrator. At the outset, it must be noted that Section 11.2 is not before the Arbitrator for decision. Therefore, he makes no finding or conclusion as to that Section of the MOU. Nor does the Arbitrator deem it to be necessary or appropriate to discuss the Fair Labor Standards Act. He does note, however, that the City does pay overtime as required by that Act for time worked in excess of 53 hours in a week (C.X. 83), and the courts have in fact applied a de minimus test as argued by the City. To the Arbitrator, this proposal must be rejected regardless of how one views Chief LaGRONE's cost estimates or his opinion concerning the potential for abuse.' While cost and the potential for abuse are important considerations, the real problem with this proposal is that fire fighters would be eligible for two hours of overtime pay for just a minute or two of work beyond the end of the shift. That's not reasonable or rational, and assuming, 'Clearly, there is a cost to the Union's proposal. That simply cannot be denied. Moreover, having witnesses testify about if they believe the employees will abuse a provision of the MOU is not terribly persuasive. Obviously, the potential for abuse is present and is a legitimate concern of the City. Indeed, the City had earlier experiences with just such conduct. 23 argueiido, that relief crews are always available for dispatch, that added administrative burden on the City is not justified. Further, it is of no small moment that the Police and IBEW MOU's do not provide for the overtime benefit the Union seeks here; i.e., two hours of overtime for a few minutes of work beyond the end of the shift. Accordingly, this Union proposal is rejected.8 3. Union Proposal to amend Section 11.5 (Acting Procedures and Pay) Proposal: An employee who has been assigned and has successfully performed the duties of a higher classification .quivaleni number of hours shall thereafter receive the rate of pay attached to such classification for all of the time he or she is assigned to perform such duties.9 The Union's evidence, provided through the testimony of Training Director Captain ROBERT BUELL, is that the existing three - shift requirement is an artifact of abandoned training and rating practices where fire fighters trained on the job under a 8This particular issue is complicated by an apparent Fire Department practice which is identified in an Information Bulletin. (See, generally, Tr. Vol. II: 220 -222.) To the Arbitrator, the practice is inconsistent with Section 11.3. The Arbitrator's authority, however, extends only to Section 11.3 as set forth by the Court. 9In its brief, the Union showed the word "thereafter" as a deletion. However, that is not consistent with the Court's decision. As it turns out, though, the Union is not incorrect in its attempt to make sense of the language; it simply did not go far enough. The Arbitrator's suggestion is discussed more fully in footnote 10. 24 supervisor's observation. Staffing and scheduling constraints now render this form of evaluation impracticable. Formal certification and outside training have replaced on the job training. Capt. BUELL also testified that he receives all reports on trainees, and that he receives nothing from supervisors specific to a trainee's first three days in a position. Further, Capt. BUELL has never used on the job evaluations to assess a trainee's emergency response performance. The Union argues that the existing requirement works an inequity on fire fighters; that the City presented no training related justification for preserving the current language; lY,at Chief LaGRONE's cost estimates are based on arbitrary assumptions; that the cost is, in any event, insignificant; and that the City asserts no credible grounds for keeping the three -shift requirement in place. The City's evidence is that it opposed this proposal during negotiations because it believes that the payment of "acting pay" is not warranted until the fire fighter has performed in the capacity for a number of shifts due to significant demands to evaluate, supervise and assist the employee while actually performing the job. Chief LaGRONE testified that the evaluation and supervision of "actors" are "labor intensive;" more is required than "just knowing they received adequate training." The City argues that Chief LaGRONE's testimony refutes the testimony of Capt. BUELL that 1) persons who wish to serve in 25 an acting capacity must merely demonstrate that they have the skills necessary for the job, and 2) the three shifts are not used now for supervision. The City also asserts that there is a cost factor that must be considered by the Arbitrator. As far as the Arbitrator is concerned, a fundamental principle of fairness and equity is that, when an employee works in a higher classification, the employee receives the rate of pay applicable to that classification for all time so worked. The Arbitrator would apply this fundamental principle here regardless of the cost and regardless of the training programs and procedures. Accordingly, this Union proposal is accepted." 4. Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 (Rates of Pay [Monthly Base Salariesll Proposal: Firefighters 5% 1-1-95, 5% 1-1-96, 4% 1-1-97. Among other things, the Union points out that the fire fighters have worked without a contract since January, 1995, and for the two years prior to January 1995, the only salary adjustment was a 1.9% cost-of-living increase in 1994. Fire fighters, therefore, ,have worked at or slightly above 1992 salary levels for more than five years. The Union proposals, it is argued, are reasonable and would restore fire fighters' salaries to levels "In order for this proposal. to make sense and eliminate possible future grievances, the Arbitrator suggests that the first paragraph of Section 11.5 read as follows: "An employee who is assigned the duties of a higher classification shall receive the rate of pay for such classification for all of the time he or she is assigned to perform such duties." 26 approximating those received by fire fighters in comparable Bay Area jurisdictions. The Union's evidence is that, from and after January 1, 1995, other City bargaining units, as well as fire fighters in comparable Bay Area jurisdictions, have experienced salary increases (U.Xs. 16-20; 38A). Total compensation for fire fighters in comparable Bay Area jurisdictions now substantially exceeds such compensation paid by the City to its fire fighters (U.X. 508). It is argued that, above and beyond the clear inequity this internal and external salary data reflects, the present wage freeze has meant a loss of real income against inflation for fire fighters and their families. Such declining earnings are inconsistent with the ever-increasing technical and workload demands which the fire fighters face. The Union points to the historical practice of the City's police and fire fighters receiving identical or similar raises, and bargaining with that expectation. Since December 1994, police raises have taken several forms. In July 1995, the City approved salary increases for police aggregating 9.98% over three years. In addition, the Police MOU granted immediate retention (longevity) pay differentials, aggregating, depending on length of employment, an additional 3% to 12.5%. Police Management received a further 7.62% salary increase, for the nominal purpose of restoring 1991 pay differentials. Thus, the Union asserts, the City's bargaining conduct 27 with the fire fighters disregards a well established standard of internal equity which has governed public safety employee salary bargaining in the past (U.Xs. 30-35). By January 1, 1997, police salaries were 12% higher than fire fighter salaries, and with retention pay added in, the police differential increases to 15% and 26%. Since at least 50% of police receive the minimum retention pay of 3%, at least half of the City's patrol officer salaries are at least 15% above what the City pays its top step fire fighters. Police Sergeant and Fire Captain salaries followed an identical pattern. Whereas in earlier years the salary discrepancy varied between 2.5% and 6.7%, between January 1995 and January 1997, Police Sergeant salaries increased significantly while Fire Captain salaries remained frozen. Thus, as of January 1, 1997, Police Sergeants received 12% higher salaries than Fire Captains, with retention pay widening that gap to between 15% and 26%. A review of KEN AKINS' data shows that between January 1994 and December 1997, the compensation which the City paid its fire fighters fell far behind what was provided to its police officers. During that same period, in comparable jurisdictions, differences in Total Compensation provided the two public safety forces remained almost equal. In December 1997, the City's Total Compensation of its police ranked sixth highest among sixteen City Survey jurisdictions comparable to the City, exceeding the average Total Compensation 28 level among those jurisdictions by 4.75% (U.X.85). On the other hand, the City's compensation of its top step fire fighters in December 1997 ranked nineteenth of twenty comparable Bay Area jurisdictions. Moreover, the same discrepancy exists within Alameda County (U.Xs. 61B and 84A). The Union asserts that its evidence concerning salary and Total Compensation comparisons underscore two facts. First, a large discrepancy exists between the City's present conduct and its past practice as regards salary and benefit negotiations with the fire fighters. Prior to the events leading to this arbitration, the City maintained approximate equity with respect to compensation between police and fire personnel. That changed in 1995. Second, the City's abandonment of its historically equitable treatment of its police and fire fighting employees is contrary to prevailing practices throughout the region. Such equity between the two public safety forces is the norm throughout Alameda County and the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. As far as the Union is concerned, what the City characterizes as "retention pay" for police officers and police managers is really longevity bonuses based on their total length of continuous service with the City. Retentionipay was merely used to disguise significant salary increases. Moreover, the real purpose for the City's use of MOU provisions purportedly to reestablish 1991 salary differentials for police and fire managers was to disguise substantial management raises. 29 Record evidence demonstrates, the Union asserts, that the City's fire fighter salaries have fallen significantly behind their counterparts in comparable San Francisco Bay Area jurisdictions. Mr. AKINS provided substantial testimonial and documentary evidence to support this conclusion (U.X.38A). As regards Total Compensation, the City's fire fighters ranked second to last. The average of fire fighter Total Compensation values for the City Survey exceeded Total Compensation for the City's fire fighter classification by 10.13% (U.X. 50B. See, also, U.X. 51). A comparison of countywide Total Compensation figures indicates even larger discrepancies among fire fighters (U.X. 61B). Salaries paid to Apparatus Operators/Engineers ("AO/E") were lower than ten of the fifteen cities in the 20-city sample that have this classification. The fifteen city salary-only average for AO/E exceeded the City's salary by 7.50% (U.X. 39). Only two of the nineteen jurisdictions surveyed had a Fire Lieutenant classification. On salary only, the City pays its Fire Lieutenants less than either of the other two cities, and their average exceeds the City's Fire Lieutenant salary by 19.84% (U.X. 40). Fourteen surveyed jurisdictions pay Fire Captains more than the City pays its Fire Captains. The nineteen city salary- only average exceeds the City Fire Captain salary by 6.25% (U.X. 41A). With respect to Total Compensation for AO/E, fourteen 30 cities in the sample provide higher compensation than the City of Alameda. One city provides lower Total Compensation, and four cities have no such classification. The fifteen city average exceeds the City's Total Compensation figure by 11.79% (U.X. 67). Both of the cities employing Fire Lieutenants pay them higher Total Compensation than the City here. For those two cities, the Total Compensation for this classification is 20.09% higher than the City. Additionally, all but two of the surveyed cities provide higher Total Compensation to Fire Captains than the City pays. The average of the nineteen cities' Total Compensation for Fire Captains exceeds the City's compensation by 10.07% (U.Xs. 68, 69). The county wide average AO/E salary exceeds the City salary by 6.55% (U.X. 52). For Fire Lieutenant, the county wide salary exceeds the City salary by 7.47% (U.X. 53), and for Fire Captain, the figure is 8.05% (U.X. 54). For Total Compensation, the county wide average paid to AO/E is 10.74% higher than such compensation paid by the City (U.X. 62A). For Fire Lieutenant and Fire Captain, the higher county wide averages are 11.76% and 11.51%, respectively (U.Xs.63A, 64A). The City's attacks on AKINS' comparison data are sham, the Union argues. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, all of the City's revisions to AKINS' City Survey, the average Total Compensation value remains 7.28% above the City of Alameda's (C.Xs. 47, 47A). Of seventeen jurisdictions included, fifteen provide 31 their fire fighters with greater Total Compensation than does the City. In fact, in every component of Total Compensation except holiday pay, the City's calculations place it below the overall "average." The City's own document, then, confirms AKINS' conclusion that its fire fighters are substantially underpaid compared to their similarly situated colleagues. Ultimately, however, the_City's standard survey list amounted to a questionable collection.of seven cities scattered over four counties. There was no articulated rationale for the bases for the selection. Salary increases are also warranted to compensate fire fighters for increases in workload and skill levels. California fire fighters must demonstrate extensive fire suppression and emergency medical skills. With the addition of Alameda Point, fire fighters must also master specialized maritime fire fighting techniques, including "confined space" rescue techniques and hazardous materials handling. Moreover, fire fighters must study and train both on and off the job to stay current with new responsibilities and increasing workloads. Finally, the Union states that the proposed salary increases are justified because cost-of-living indicators confirm that its salary (and benefit) proposals are fair and equitable. Thus, from January 1992 until August 1997, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers ("CPI-W") showed an increase of 14.15% (U.X. 71). The Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers ("CPI-U") increased by 14.90% over the same period (U.X. 32 70). During the compensation freeze here, the fire fighters have continually lost economic ground. Salary (and benefit) adjustments the Union now seeks are needed to redress this loss. The Union concludes by pointing out that the City's two principal negotiators. confirmed their own use of the CPI in contract negotiations. Until economists agree on a different cost- of-living measure, or unless the parties stipulate to some other criterion for wage adjustments, the CPI remains the most credible statistical tool available, the Baskin Report notwithstanding. According to the City, Chief LaGRONE has calculated the cost of this Union proposal to be $280,435 for 1995, $287,340 for 1996 and $243,664 for 1997 (C.Xs. 13B, 83). The increase in monthly base salaries alone for these three years would be $811,439. The City points out that it had several reasons for its refusing to agree to the Union's proposals for increases in wages and benefits. Among those reasons was that the City's economic condition did not suppOrt a wage increase. In late 1994, when the City began to prepare for negotiations with the Union, it was faced with a budget deficit of $611,416 (C.Xs. 88, 118). The City's economic condition, the City argues, was caused by a number of factors. One was the recession of the early 1990's. Property transfer taxes and sales tax collections were adversely affected. Another factor affecting City revenues was State 33 legislation. State legislation caused the City to lose, for example, cigarette tax revenues, moving violation revenues and property tax revenues. From the 1990-91 fiscal year through the 1997-98 fiscal year, the City's revenues were decreased by an estimated total of $16,775,173 as a result of such legislation (C.X. 105. See also, C.Xs. 84, 91, 98 and 104.) The City also had additional expenses as a result of State and Federal mandates (C.X. 106). One example of such mandates is the legislation requiring the City to fund the program under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Total unfunded mandates for the 1994-95 fiscal year were estimated to be $11,091,373. The City points out that it also suffered reduced revenues transferred from the Bureau of Electricity (C.X. 108), and that the closure of the Naval Air Station has also impacted the City's revenues. In an effort to raise revenue, the City Council adopted a number of measures (C.Xs. 109-111. Tr. Vol. XVIII: 2828-31). The City also took steps to reduce expenditures (C.X. 112. Tr- Vol. XVIII: 2832-41). Another reason the City points to for refusing to agree to any of the Union's proposals for increases in wages (and benefits) is that it was not necessary to increase wages in order to recruit and retain qualified fire fighters (C.X. 14). From 1992 through 1997, only two persons in the Fire unit left the City for reasons other than retirement. The statistics are very different 34 for police. For the same period, the City lost 18 employees from the Police Department. The City maintains that it has a very difficult time testing, recruiting and filling police officer positions (Tr. Vol. IV: 650). The City also asserts that its position in negotiations with the Union was consistent with its position with other bargaining groups for 1995, with two exceptions (C.X. 17). The first exception is "retention pay" for police. This "pay" was included in the APOA agreement beginning in 1995 because the City had historically experienced problems retaining police officers. No such problem exists with fire fighters. "Retention pay" is not a "skill pay." Rather, it can be likened to an additional three steps on the pay scale, based on length of service. There is no rationale, the City argues, for granting a comparable increase to the Union. The other exception concerns fire and police management. They received increases to restore the previously lost differentials in pay. Because these management units did not receive pay increases several years earlier, police sergeants (who receive overtime pay) were making more than lieutenants (who do not receive overtime pay). Also, assistant fire chiefs (no overtime pay) and fire captains (receive overtime pay) were getting very close in pay. The Union's argument that pay increases are justified by increased training and workload is not supported by the evidence. 35 All training is conducted during work hours and while in paid status, and three hours of training are enough to meet all training requirements. Moreover, any increase in workload had been more than offset by increased staffing (C.Xs,41-44, 46. Tr. Vol. IX: 1360). The workload per employee, then, remains fairly constant. In fact, the City asserts, although there has been an increase in workload because of the addition of Alameda Point, the City has provided additional resources to handle that workload, so the overall workload of suppression employees has been reduced. With respect to the "comparability" evidence presented by the Union, the City argues that, although the City Charter no longer contains any criteria for the Arbitrator to consider in reaching his decision, little weight should be given to such evidence here, given the scant history that "comparability" information has been used by the parties in negotiations in the past and no history of its use in these negotiations. Mr. RUNGIS testified that such information is looked at, but the City is not "driven" by it (Tr. Vol. V: 854). While the City is "aware" of other juridictions, factors such as the City's economic condition and ability to retain personnel are more important (Tr. Vol. V: 682; 762). Even Mr. AKINS testified, among other things, that he was told by the Union that "there had never been even a working agreement across the bargaining table" with the City concerning what jurisdictions would be looked at for comparability purposes (Tr. Vol. VII: 974-5; Vol. VIII: 1154). 36 The "Bay Area Jurisdictions" and "Alameda County Jurisdictions" were, for the most part, put together by AKINS from a list" received from Lt. D'ORAZI. Mr. AKINS added a few jurisdictions but did not strike any. He surveyed certain jurisdictions in Alameda County because the Union asked him to do so. Moreover, AKINS did not independently research for this case whether the information regarding the various cities was still accurate based upon his studies that were done three or four years earlier, nor did he know whether Lt. D'ORAZI has done so (Tr Vol. VIII: 1144 -47). In point of fact, the City argues, the Union presented no testimony to show that any of the jurisdictions in either survey are comparable to the City in teLnls of whether they have former military bases like the Naval Air Station, whether they operate their own electric utility, whether their revenue bases are similar to the City's, whether they have similar hazards, whether they have a similar number of responses, whether they operate at a "basic life support" level as first responder for medical emergencies, and similar information. Mr. AKINS agreed that such information was relevant (Tr. Vol. VIII: 1144 -45. See, also, 1146). It is a "giant leap ", then, to conclude that the jurisdictions used by AKINS are truly "comparable" to the City. Nor did the Union present any evidence showing that the duties of City fire fighters are comparable to the duties of the fire fighters in the various jurisdictions used by AKINS. For 37 example, the City points out that its fire service has the lowest "model" for delivery of emergency medical services of the eleven jurisdictions providing such services in Alameda County (C.X. 45; Tr. Vol. IX: 1341-45). Any comparison of compensation with these jurisdictions, then, should consider the fact that they all provide higher levels of emergency medical services. Even if it is assumed that the jurisdictions used by the Union are truly "comparable," such information must nevertheless be viewed with caution. It is difficult to be certain that information regarding compensation in other jurisdictions is reliable (C.X. 53). The handwritten notations on City Exhibit 53 show the discrepancies between the City's information (C.X. 52) and the information used by the Union (U.Xs. 50A & 61A). With respect to a comparison between the City's fire and police units, it must be remembered that these units receive different types of benefits. For example, fire employees receive EMT and Educational Incentive Pay. Police only receive the educational incentive, and although that incentive is twice that of fire, when'the two are combined, the total amounts paid to each are virtually identical (C.X. 76). Moreover, a far greater percentage of members of the fire bargaining unit (45.2%) hold positions above the rank of Fire Fighter versus the percentage of members of the police bargaining unit who hold positions above the rank of Police Officer (16.7%) (C.X. 23). So, a far greater number of fire fighters receive 38 higher pay as base pay than in the police unit. If the comparison is only for the entry-level ranks of Fire Fighter and Police Officer, the results are skewed for the entire bargaining unit. For 1997, the City believes that, if such information is relevant, City Exhibit 47A should be considered, rather than Union Exhibit 50B, because the City's adjustments are appropriate. That City Exhibit shows that the City is 7.28% below the average of the jurisdictions included, rather than the 10.13% shown on Union Exhibit 50B. Additionally, the City points to the CPI and asserts that, while changes in the CPI are relevant, they have never been controlling in negotiations. The CPI, argues the City, is inflated and that fact has been communicated to the Union in the past and during these negotiations. Moreover, because the CPI includes a health and welfare "component" and the City negotiates health and welfare separately from salary increases, the application of the CPI to salaries would result in a greater increase than the actual CPI if health benefits are also increased. The City uses the CPI-W, which was 1.8% in November 1994, when negotiations began, and was down to 1.6% in November 1995 when the parties concluded mediation. It is against this backdrop that the Union's proposals, and the City's response to them, should be viewed. From November 1993 to August 1997, the CPI-W increased 9.03%, and from November 1994 to August 1997, it increased 7.11%. 39 To the extent the Arbitrator considers the increase in the CPI to be relevant, it is the change in the CPI-W which should be considered because that is the index used by the City. Furthermore, it is the change from November 1994 to August 1997 of 7.11% which is relevant because the fire fighters received a salary increase on January 1, 1994, and the time in question begins on January 1, 1995. The Union's proposals, which result in a cumulative increase of 18.91% (C.X. 50A), are clearly far in excess of the increase in the CPI. In consequence of the magnitude of this Union proposal, the Arbitrator has attempted to set out with some specificity the evidence and arguments of both parties. In doing so, the Arbitrator believes it is therefore unnecessary to write a long, detailed analysis of the many issues raised by the parties. A few brief comments, however, are called for prior to rendering a decision. The parties correctly point out that the provisions of the City Charter provide no guidance relative to what, if any, criteria should be looked to in arriving at a decision in this case. Obviously, then, the Arbitrator must look elsewhere so as to render, hopefully, a reasonable and rational decision as to salaries for fire fighters. So, where is "elsewhere?" It is certainly clear from the many authorities cited by the parties that substantially all triers-of-fact look to, among other things, internal and external comparisons as a basis for 40 their decisions, and while the appropriateness of a comparison is always subject to challenge, such "comparability" is universally considered by arbitrators. The Arbitrator hastens to add, however, that, while both internal and external comparability evidence is relevant, it is not controlling. It is the balance among the totality of relevant record evidence which will be looked to for answers. Additionally, to this Arbitrator, at least, internal comparability evidence takes precedence over such external evidence. With respect to the external comparability evidence submitted by both parties, such evidence is generally accepted by the Arbitrator, but with the recognition that each party's evidence has certain shortcomings. For example, the City correctly points out that, in AKINS' surveys, many unanswered comparability questions exist in this record. It is difficult, then, to conclude that the jurisdictions used by AKINS are truly "comparable" to the City; however, they are arguably comparable, so such evidence cannot be completely disregarded. An example concerning the City's evidence in this regard is City Exhibit 47A. While the Arbitrator agrees that the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District should be deleted from the survey and Vacaville should be added, he also believes that, for the reasons testified by AKINS, the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton should be included. So, while this evidence has been given consideration, such evidence has been cautiously reviewed. 41 Finally, with respect to external comparability evidence, and given the scope of this Union proposal, the Arbitrator believes, for obvious reasons, that the salary-only surveys provide much more guidance in arriving at a sound decision than do the Total Compensation surveys. We are, after all, concerned here with a salary increase proposal from the Union, and salary-only surveys provide a true comparison of City fire fighters in all classifications with the salaries of fire fighters in comparable jurisdictions. Total Compensation data may be important concerning proposals where financial benefits other than salaries are involved. As regards the CPI, to the extent the Arbitrator considered such evidence to be relevant, the CPI-W was looked to for guidance. That is the Index used by the City in the past, so it's reasonable and appropriate to limit any consideration to that Index. It must be noted, however, that, in recent years, the CPI has been given less emphasis in determining wage adjustments. On balance, then, the CPI has been given less weight than other criteria considered by the Arbitrator. An example and brief comment concerning external comparability evidence with respect to Total Compensation is in order. The Union's evidence (U.X. 618) shows that City fire fighters' Total Compensation was 9.8% below the average of fire fighter Total Compensation paid by all Alameda County jurisdictions in December 1997. The Union's evidence (U.X. SOB) also shows that, 42 by December 1997, the City's Total Compensation of its top step fire fighters was 10.13% below the average Total Compensation paid to fire fighters by comparable Bay Area jurisdictions. The City took those figures, made what it considered to be appropriate adjustments (C.X. 47A), and the Union's 10.13% figure now becomes the City's 7.28% figure. Perhaps not a significant difference, but a difference which shows how susceptible to change these surveys are with certain minor variations in data. These surveys are "fluid" in nature and subject to fairly easy manipulation, depending on the data used to make the calculations. The bottom line here, as far as the Arbitrator is concerned; is that, regardless of whose data is considered, and no matter how the numbers are juggled, the salaries paid by the City to its fire fighters are sufficiently below the salaries paid to fire fighters in comparable jurisdictions so as to require correction. With respect to internal comparisons, the Arbitrator has looked closely to how the fire fighters have been treated compared to police officers, police sergeants and fire captains. The last salary increase for the fire fighters was 1.9% in 1994. By January 1, 1997, police officer salaries, including "Retention Pay," was well over 12% higher than fire fighters. The same is true as to police sergeants and fire captains. Regardless of the reasons advanced by the City for providing the salary increases that it did to police officers and 43 police and fire management, the Arbitrator simply cannot accept those reasons as justification for offering the fire fighters absolutely nothing by way of a salary increase in 1995. The Arbitrator is mindful of the City's unenviable financial condition in 1995. That was briefly discussed in the ability to pay portion of this decision. However, the City did find its way clear to do something for police officers by way of retention pay and for fire and police management by way of a return to the 1991 differential. The City should likewise have done something for this bargaining unit. The record discloses six undeniable facts that are compelling here. First, this bargaining unit has not had a raise in over four years. Second, the last salary increase was just 1.9%. Third, the fire fighters' salaries compared to the police are significantly out-of-line. Fourth, the City provided salary increases (regardless of names used) to police and fire and police management in 1995. Fifth, regardless of whose comparability data the Arbitrator considers, the conclusion is the same; i.e., the City's fire fighters are generally underpaid. Sixth, salaries-only data show that, in all classifications, the City's fire fighters are paid significantly less than their counterparts in comparable jurisdictions. Accordingly, based on all of the above and the entire record, the Union's proposal is accepted in part and denied in part. The monthly base salaries shall be increased as follows: 44 January 1,1995 January 1, 1996 January 1, 1997 3% - 5% - 4 %. 5. Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 Mates of Pay [Salary Differentials]) Proposal: A.O. 9% above top step FF as of 1 -1 -95; Lieut. 18% above top step FF as of 1 -1 -95; Capt. 24% above top step FF as of 1 -1 -95. This proposal, the Union states, would establish a set of percentage differentials which will preserve the relationships between rates of pay for the various classifications of fire fighter. Lt. D'ORAZI testified that, in addition to overall increases, this proposal would remedy salary compaction between positions. That is the purpose of establishing rank - specific salary differentials. Lt. D'ORAZI explained the Union's proposal using the AO /E position as an example. Presently, there is a 6% differential between the AO /E salary and the top step fire fighter salary. That, the Union believes, does not fairly compensate the AO /E for the additional skills and experience needed for that position. The same compaction problem exists with respect to the Lieutenant and Captain salaries. Mr. AKINS prepared a study which compared the degree of salary separation occurring in other jurisdictions comparable to the City. His findings were divided into several categories, according to the number of job classifications in the particular 45 fire department (U.X. 66). Including the City, three jurisdictions staff all four ranks. Of the remaining sixteen jurisdictions, thirteen do not have the Lieutenant position, and four jurisdictions staff only Captain and Fire Fighter positions. Mr AKINS determined the top step salary in each classification for each jurisdiction and calculated a series of percentage differentials between salaries for those positions (Tr. Vol. VII: 1068 -70; 1080). The Union points out that the schedule of differentials in its proposal can itself be used to show what Union Exhibit 66 differentials would result in if this proposal is accepted. It is clear, argues the Union, that this proposal is needed to restore and maintain salary spreads which are in line with those in comparable jurisdictions. For example, among the three jurisdictions that have all four positions, salary differentials between Captain and Fire Fighter salaries range from the City's at 21.03% to Berkeley's at 25.62 %. The Union's proposal would place the City in the middle. The Union also maintains that the City's AO /E position receives one of the poorest inter -rank differentials found in AKINS' study. Of sixteen jurisdictions which have this classification, twelve have wider salary spreads between AO /E and Fire Fighter salaries than the City has. The skills needed to operate the variety of specialized vehicles demand considerable training, and skills and knowledge must be updated as new equipment 46 comes on line. The Union, it argues, is justified in seeking this increase in salary differentials. As regards the salary spread between Lieutenant and Captain, the City falls between the two other jurisdictions which staff a Lieutenant position. This middle position is partially due to the City's depressed Captain salaries, which are the seventh lowers in the 20-city survey and third lowest among fourteen Alameda County jurisdictions (U.Xs.41A, 54). The City's Lieutenant salary is fifth lowest in the city survey (U.X. 53). The Union's proposal would result in a spread/compaction between the other two cities, at 8.25%; however, the Lieutenant's and Captain's salaries would no longer fall at the low end of comparable jurisdictions. The Union concludes by arguing the advantage of accepting its proposal; i.e., it provides set percentages for salary differentials so that as salaries shift, the relative position of each job classification is preserved. The City points out that the current spread between top step fire fighter salary and the base salary for AO/E is 6%; for Lieutenant is 12%; and for Captain is 21%. The cost to the City if this proposal is accepted is $97,267 in 1995, $102,131 in 1996, and $117,926 in 1997, for a three-year total of $317,324 (C.X. 13B). The Arbitrator notes here that, in her brief, counsel for the City set forth the City's position with respect to the Union proposals contained in Paragraphs 4 through 7 of the Court's Statement of Decision without necessarily discussing each Union 47 proposal individually. The Arbitrator set forth with some particularity the City's evidence and arguments under Paragraph 4, above. It is unnecessary to repeat those matters here. Suffice it to say that such evidence and arguments are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. The same incorporation by reference will apply under Paragraphs 6 and 7, as well. With respect to the merits of this Union proposal, and looking for the moment at just those three jurisdictions, which includes the City, that employ all four fire classifications, the AO/E salary for the City of Alameda is 1.27% below Milpitas and 2.51% below Berkeley. There is no good reason for the City's AC/2 classification to be third out of three in salary differential to top step fire fighter salary. And it's much worse when all of the jurisdictions with the AO/E classification are considered. On the other hand, the Union's proposed 9% differential is a bit "too rich." Making the differential for the AO/E classification 7.5% places the City in the middle of the three jurisdictions with all fire classifications, and somewhat better than the 'middle position for all jurisdictions with this classification. Much the same reasoning holds true for Lieutenant, as well. In terms of salary, the City falls between the other two jurisdictions that have this classification, but in the city survey, the City's Lieutenant salary is fifth lowest. However, to move the Lieutenant differential to 18% of top step Fire Fighter is 48 unreasonable. Based on the record evidence, the Arbitrator believes a more appropriate differential is 13.5%. As far as Captain is concerned, once again the'salary for the City is in the middle - actually almost tied with Berkeley for the last position - among the three jurisdictions with all classifications, but among the 20-c ty survey and the Alameda County survey, the salary paid by the City is seventh lowest and third lowest, respectively. Undeniably, as with the other classifications, an adjustment in the differential is warranted. Based upon all relevant evidence, the Arbitrator has concluded that the appropriate differential for Captain to top step Fire Fighter salary is 22.5%. One final point concerning this Union proposal. The Union has proposed that the differentials be effective as of January 1, 1995. While the Arbitrator has held that the City had "some" ability to pay in 1995, he has also made it clear that the City's financial condition that year left a great deal to be desired. Therefore, the Arbitrator will have the differentials he has determined to be appropriate take effect January 1, 1996. Accordingly, this Union proposal is accepted as to purpose. There are definite advantages to having rank-specific differentials stated in terms of set percentages. The substance of the Union proposal, however, is rejected and modified as follows: AO/E: 7.5% above top step Fire Fighter as of January 1, 1996; Lieutenant: 13.5% above top step 49 Fire Fighter as of January 1, 1996; and Captain: 22.5% above top step Fire Fighter as of January 1, 1996. 6. Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 (Rates of Pay [Sixth Paragraph)) Proposal: During the above assignments an employee may be temporarily displaced from such assignment and replaced by an employee on a limited duty assignment made in accordance with Section 25.3 of this Memorandum of Understanding. The employee on limited duty assignment shall receive any differential assigned to the position. At the end of such limited duty assignment the displaced employee shall be provided the option of completing the remainder of the displaced employee's assignment, which may be extended by the length of such limited duty assignments. City analysts, the Union contends, apparently misinterpreted the Union proposal as covering a larger pool of 40- hour shift personnel than the Union intended. The City's analysis described the Union proposal as requiring payment of a differential to fire fighters detailed to assist with operations. The Union proposal, it explains, was not that differentials be paid to all temporary assignees providing support to higher salaried personnel, but that differentials be paid to limited duty assignees performing the actual duties of higher salaried personnel. The Union urges that the award correct for this misinterpretation on the City's part, and that the Arbitrator then accept this proposal. It would establish equity for those infrequent situations where a fire fighter, for medical or similar 50 reasons, is transferred to a limited duty assignment pursuant to Section 25.3 of the MOU. The City argues that, according to Chief LaGRONE's best estimate, this proposal would cost a total of $4,286 (C.X. 13B). Additionally, even given Lt. D'ORAZI's testimony explaining the City's misinterpretation of this proposal, which explanation is not completely clear from the text of the proposal, the payment of the subject differential to limited duty employees is unwarranted because such employees do not have the special expertise of the regularly-assigned office personnel, and that is the basis for the extra pay. The Arbitrator considers the Union's proposal to be clear and unambiguous as written, and given Lt. D'ORAZI's testimony and Union counsel's brief on this matter, any doubt as to what the Union intended has been removed, The Union's intent and the language of the proposal, however, are not the issue. The issue for the Arbitrator is whether or not this proposal should be accepted. The purpose of the limited duty assignment pursuant to Section 25.3 of the MOU is to provide, if possible, temporary work to the employee who is incapacitated "from performing the full duties of his or her job" (25.3(1)). Moreover, Section 25.3 is very specific with respect to its application, and, quite appropriately, leaves the decision as to such assignments "at the discretion of the Fire Chief, ..." (25.3(4)). 51 Also clear are the relevant paragraphs of Section 12.1 of the MOU, particularly the third paragraph, wherein the classification of Fire Fighter is specifically provided for along with an 11% salary differential for assignment to the Fire Prevention Bureau.' The City's argument,then, that the differential pay to limited duty employees is unwarranted because such employees do not have the special expertise of the regular-assigned office personnel is simply too general and may not necessarily be accurate. Besides, the sixth paragraph of Section 12.1 is written in the permissive "may" and not the mandatory."shall," and, as mentioned above, Section 25.3(4) provides the Fire Chief with the requisite discretion in making his decision. The Union proposal is fair and equitable, and given all of the above and the entire record, it is accepted. 7. Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.2 (Starting Rate) Proposal: For the classification of Firefighter, the entrance salary for a new employee entering City service shall be the minimum salary for that classification, provided, however, that when a new employee has both EMT 1-A and Firefighter 1 certificate (sic), "Although not an issue with which the Arbitrator need be concerned, the parties may want to clear up some ambiguity with certain paragraphs of Section 12.1. For example, Paragraph 3 provides for an 11% differential to fire fighters assigned to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Can a fire fighter be assigned to training and EMS, as well? Probably, given Paragraph 4 in particular ("request from employees" and "informing all qualified employees"). But does the 11% differential still apply? Paragraph 3 limits it to assignments in Fire Prevention for fire fighters. 52 third step. al. • This proposal, the Union states, memorializes an informal agreement between the parties which has existed since 1987, and which the City honored consistently until August 1994. At that point, the City unilaterally abrogated the starting rate "agreement," and disregarded not only qualifying credentials, but professional experience. Experienced lateral hires were also subjected to the first step salaries, in disregard of both their prior background and their credentials. Fourteen experienced fire fighters from the former Alameda Naval Air Station fire unit were employed at the entry level in 1996. Hiring fire fighters at salary levels below their experience and qualifications is a practice which alienates skilled public safety personnel and increases the likelihood and rate of turnover. Preserving reasonable and equitable entry level compensation for lateral hires, the Union asserts, is consistent with the wishes of the voters of the City of Alameda. The City indicates that this proposal would cost $19,380 in 1995, $36,825 in 1996, and $56,127 in 1997, for a three -year total of $112,332. Consistent with the MOU, since August 1994, the City has hired all fire fighters, including lateral hires, at Step 1 rather than at Step 3. The Union's proposal eliminates the City Manager's discretion in order to "protect" new hires. No other reason was employee be hired at the 53 given for the proposed change. The City concludes by arguing that it is opposed to this proposal because there is an ample supply of qualified applicants with both certificates, including laterals, who are willing to apply at Step 1. The City is also opposed to this proposal because of cost. The current language of the MOU requires that, if a new employee has both specified certificates, the Fire Chief recommend to the City Manager that such employee be hired at the third step. The final decision, however, is left to the City Manager. The fact that, for a number of years, new hires with the requisite credentials were routinely employed at Step 3 is of no moment. The City Manager has the discretion to make the decision he or she deems appropriate. The passage of time and the consistent exercise of that discretion as to new hires does not somehow negate the enabling MOU provision. The record evidence shows that the City Manager has not been unfair or unreasonable in exercising his authority under this provision of the MOU. Indeed, as the Union points out, from 1987 until August 1994, all new hires with the two certificates were employed at Step 3. That fact argues more against accepting this proposal than in favor of it. Accordingly, this Union proposal is rejected. 8. City Proposal to Amend Section 12.3 (Step Increases) Proposal: The step plan of each salary range shall be applied and interpreted as follows for 54 permanent and probationary employees: The first step shall be the minimum rate and shall normally be the hiring rate for the class. The second step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months (One (1) year for employees hired after July 1, 1996) of paid status at the first step. The Third step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months (one (1) year for employees hired after July 1, 1996) of paid status at the second step. The fourth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of six (6) months (one (1) year for employees hired after July 1, 1996) of paid status at the third step. The fifth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the fourth step. The sixth step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the fifth step. The seventh step shall be paid upon satisfactory completion of one (1) year of paid status at the sixth step. Raises to the next step shall be automatic unless the employee's service has not been satisfactory in which event a raise may be delayed for not more than six (6) months with the approval of the City Manager. This City proposal lengthens each of the first three steps in the pay scale from six months to one year. The time it would take an entry-level employee to reach the top pay step, then, would be six years instead of four and one-half years. The City points to two reasons for this proposal. First, 55 it would result in an economy which enabled the City to make other proposals. In 1998, this proposal results in savings to the City of $29,445 (C.X. 13B). Second, this proposal makes the time between step increases uniform City-wide, consistent with the one-year time interval between step increases for all other units (C.X. 68). The fact that a fire fighter could be promoted before reaching the top step would act as an incentive to encourage employees to seek promotion, a legitimate management objective. The Union argues that the City's use of internal comparison data is misleading. City Exhibit 68 does not indicate whether the salary steps for other City bargaining units extend over equal ranges of pay, or are merely superficially similar because they have the same number of steps. In fact, closer scrutiny reveals that this proposal would actually magnify an existing inequity, rather than eliminating one. According to KINGSLEY's testimony, the Union points out, the City sets salary step levels by first fixing the top salary amount, then proceeding downward through a series of calculations, to set the rest of the step values (Tr. Vol. XI: 1808). With this process, the seven salary steps in the fire MOU reflect a decision by the City to depress the entry level salary for fire fighters somewhat more severely then for other job classifications. Thus, the entry level step for fire fighters is 45.4% below the top step salary, with seven steps separating the bottom 56 and top, while for all bargaining units with five-step salary schedules, the entry level salary is only 21.5% lower than top step. Moreover, fire fighters presently progress from entry to top step over a total of four and one-half years. In bargaining units with five salary steps at one-year intervals, employees progress from entry to top step in four years. So, fire fighters are already slightly disadvantaged compared to other bargaining units, and this City proposal would deepen that inequity. Lengthening the interval between step raises would also subject the fire fighters to significantly poorer terms of compensation than those provided to other Bay Area fire fighters. The City is already at the low end in terms of the delay in reaching top step salary. The Union concludes by arguing that the City's regressive proposal is not justified by any criteria accepted by arbitrators in interest arbitration proceedings, and, therefore, this proposal should be rejected. To the Arbitrator, this City proposal has no merit. To compare a bargaining unit, like the fire fighters unit, with seven salary steps to bargaining units, like substantially all other City units, with five salary steps is unreasonable. Further, lengthening the interval between the first three step increases, but leaving the fire fighters' seven-step structure in place, leaves those employees in an even worse position than they already are compared to other City bargaining units. 57 Accordingly, this City proposal is rejected. 9. City Proposal to Amend Section 13.1 (Flexible Benefit Plan) and (Appendix E) Proposal: (Subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Paragraph 4 of Appendix E) (2) The City will allow employees hired after July 1, 1995, who retire to participate in the City's medical and dental plans for retirees provided the employee meets the following requirements: (1) retired employee has twenty (20) years or more of service with the Alameda Fire Department and (2) the retired employee retires (for serllice or disability), and (3) the retired employee actually draws a PERS pension within one hundred twenty (120) days of separation from the Alameda Fire Department. (C) In addition it is agreed that a retired employee will no longer be eligible to participate in the City's medical plan should the retired employee elect to be covered by another medical plan. Furthermore, it is agreed that a retired employee who once waives his or her participation in the City's medical plan coverage such waiver shall be irrevocable. The City's evidence is that, because it has elected to provide health benefits to employees through the PERS health plan, it is required by statute to provide health benefits to retired employees. When the "1082 Agreement" was reached, transferring safety employees to PERS, the City agreed to pay the full cost of medical premiums for sworn police and fire employees who retire. 58 This proposal, the City points out, would require that newly-hired employees have 20 years of service to qualify for City-paid health benefits upon retirement. A retiree with less than 20 years of service would pay for such benefits himself or herself. The City asserts that this proposal was part of its overall effort at cost savings. It would result in long-term cost savings, and it would assure that those employees who receive this benefit have earned it. The implementation of this proposal would be accomplished by adding the above quoted language from the Court's order to paragraph 4(a) and (b) of the "1082 Agreement," or by adding the language at the conclusion of paragraph 4(a) and (b) 12 The City concludes by arguing that this proposal should be accepted in order to provide uniformity of benefits among all City safety employees (C.X. 75). Thus, all safety employees who receive the benefit of having the City pay the full cost of the retiree's medical premium who were hired after July 1, 1995, must have 20 years of service prior to retirement. An employee who retires with less than 20 years of service remains eligible for medical benefits but would have to pay for them himself or herself. It should also be accepted by the Arbitrator because of the long- term cost savings. The Union points out that, according to Ms. KINGSLEY's 'See, also, footnote 81 at page 42 of the City's brief for another method of implementing this proposal. 59 testimony, the cost of medical coverage for early retirees is not a "huge problem" in the Fire Department, and that, while Mr. RUNGIS testified that the proposal was a means to achieve long-term cost savings, no one from the City offered any projection as to the amount of such savings. Clearly, the Union asserts, the testimony of RUNGIS and KINGSLEY that retiree insurance take-aways were negotiated with other public safety units is mistaken. Additionally, given the absence of identifiable fiscal benefit and the vacuity of the City's alternative justification, no basis remains for inclusion of this City proposal in the Arbitrator's award. This two-tiered benefit adjustment should be rejected. A review of Union Exhibits 16, 17 and 19 shows that City Exhibit 75 and the testimony of RUNGIS and KINGSLEY are accurate. (See Union Exhibit 16, Section 14 at Page 9; Union Exhibit 17, Section 14(D) at Page 7; and Union Exhibit 19, Section 14 at Page 8). In this case, the Arbitrator agrees that it is reasonable both as to uniformity among public safety employees and the potential for long-term cost savings, to accept this City proposal. Accordingly, this City proposal is accepted. 10.& Union Proposal to Amend Section 13.1 (Flexible 25. Penefit Plan) Proposal: Union wishes to negotiate increases to the contributions made by the city toward the flexible benefits plan as described in 60 sections 13.2, 13.3, 13.5 and 13.6.'3 11. Union Proposal to Amend Section 13.2 (Dental) Proposal: The City shall make the necessary contributions per month per eligible employee toward the City's Flexible Benefits to provide the following dental plan to the employee and eligible dependents. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees. 1) Diagnostic and Preventative 90% 2) Basic Benefits 90% 3) Crowns, Jackets and Cast Restoration 90% 4) Prosthodontic Benefits 75% 5) Annual Benefit $1,500 per enrollee 6) Orthodontics $2,000 lifetime benefit per enrollee. 12. Union Proposal, to Add Section 13.6 (Vision Plan) Proposal: The city shall make the necessary contributions per month toward the city's flexible benefit program to provide an optical and eyeglass plan for eligible employees and their dependents. The proposal for Vision Care is based on a twelve (12) month examination, twelve (12) month lenses and twenty -four (24) month frame interval as 13The Union's proposal as to Section 13.1 is as follows Effective 1/1/97 Employee $291.35 Employee and one dependent 454.10 Employee and two or more Dependents 551.11 The Union's proposal as to Section 13.3 is as follows: The City shall make the necessary contributions per month per eligible employee toward the City's Flexible Benefits to provide each employee with a Fifteen Tlloasand Dollars ($15,000.00) Forty Thousand Dollar ($40,000) life insurance program. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees. (U.X. 1A) 61 identified by Plan B of the Vision Service Plan (VSP) with a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) co-payment. The Union's evidence with respect to these proposals is that the current City contribution figures were developed during negotiations in 1992, which was the year the City transferred to the PERS system. The parties agreed to the establishment of the Flexible Benefit Plan ("FBP"), under which employees selected from an array of PERS insurance options. PERS regulations require the inclusion of medical, dental and life insurance. The parties determined the amount of the City's contribution to the FEP by averaging the premiums for medical, dental and life insurance plans available in Alameda County, and then adding the three averages together. A formula was added which required the City to contribute an additional 85% of any increase in Kaiser health insurance premiums (Tr. Vol. XII: 1831-35). The Union points out that since 1992, medical costs have increased significantly, and the insurance plans created that year fail to cover substantial portions of the fire fighters' medical costs, including their families. For example, the dental plan, which has been in place since 1978, paid only 75% of members' costs and set other benefit limits which left substantial costs for members to pay themselves. Moreover, from the Union's comparability studies, the City pays the third lowest dental insurance premium of 22 jurisdictions in the samples whose dental premium was broken out. 62 The average of these premiums was $78.71, and many jurisdictions have higher annual caps and orthodontic caps than the City's present plan. With respect to the life insurance component, the Union argues that the benefit paid for this part of the FBP has not increased for at least 18 years. The present level of benefit of $15,000 is insufficient to provide meaningful relief to survivors in the event of a fire fighter's death. The Union's proposed increase to $40,000 is $10,000 less than its initial proposal. As usual, the Union points out, the City did not respond during negotiations, except to reject the proposal as another "cost item." The Union's evidence on the matter of life insurance is that a policy yielding a $40,000 benefit would cost $10.60. The Union's calculations were based on premium information provided by the City. In addition, Lt. D'ORAZI testified that his review of a selection of City contracts with management and confidential staff revealed that all such contracts included maintenance of a $50,000 life insurance policy. In contrast, non-management MOU's provided only a $15,000 benefit. Of 23 jurisdictions whose life insurance costs are identified in Mr. AKINS' comparability surveys of total compensation, only five were less than what the City pays for the policy its fire fighters receive. The average premium paid by those 23 jurisdictions was $9.20 per month. Of five jurisdictions listed in City Exhibit 52, for which life insurance was broken out, 63 only one provided less life insurance to its fire fighters than the City. The Union's proposed City contribution for the FBP also includes the cost of a mid-range vision care premium. In preparing her cost estimates for the vision and dental coverage under the Union's proposal, the Union points out that Personnel Director KINGSLEY included not only the amount necessary to purchase such coverage for fire fighters, but for all City employees. Ms. KINGSLEY justified this approach because, as she testified, the City's "philosophy" of granting uniform benefits would require it to provide increased coverage to every City employee. In conclusion, the Union argues that City insurance benefits are clearly insufficient to meet fire fighters' needs; that all components of the City's present contribution to fire fighter insurance are significantly below prevailing noLms; that the City's argument concerning its "philosophy" is spurious, given the disparity in life insurance coverage discussed above; that medical costs have escalated sharply since the present FBP was assembled; that the premiums for the vision and dental coverage modest; that other Bay Area fire jurisdictions pay vision are and dental insurance premiums equal to or greater than those proposed by the Union; and that an award implementing the Union's proposed flexible benefit increase would be consistent with prevailing local and regional practices. The City's evidence is that the total amount paid by the 64 City under the FBP varies depending on whether the employee declines medical coverage or whether such coverage is elected for the employee only, the employee and one dependent or the employee and two or more dependents (C.X. 69; Tr. Vol. XII: 1882-83). Dental insurance is mandatory for all full time employees, and the City pays $56.20 per month, which is the full cost of such coverage for such employees and dependents. Life insurance is also mandatory, and the City pays $3.98 which is the full cost of the present coverage. Once the City's payments for dental and life insurance are subtracted from the total amount available the "balance" is available for medical coverage. Thus, the City .points out, if its cost for dental or life insurance increases, or a vision plan is added, the amount available for medical insurance will decrease unless the total FBP amount is increased as suggested by the Union. The dollar amounts set forth in Section 13.1 of the MOU are the specified party rates for medical benefits only, not, as Lt. D'ORAZI believed, the total amount of the FBP (Tr. Vol. XII: 1832-35). City Exhibit 69 shows, among other things, how much additional compensation an employee will receive in his or her paycheck each month, depending on party coverage, by selecting any of the HMO's available to employees for medical coverage. The City also offers "indemnity" plans through the PERS health care system which would require an employee who selects any such plan to pay a small portion of the premium for that coverage. The City's evidence is that only one employee has 65 selected such an indemnity plan. The City points out that Paragraphs 10 and 25 of Joint Exhibit:6 are identical, and that the Union never proposed any specific increases in the City's "contribution" during negotiations and, in particular, did not propose the dollar amounts included in Union Exhibit 1A. With respect to the Union's proposal concerning dental insurance, the City points out that the cost for the increase in benefits would be $78.58 per month, an increase of $22.38 per month for a total increase of $28,200 per year for fire fighters (C.X. 70). If this increased benefit were provided City-wide, consistent with the City's philosophy, the cost would be $171,876 per year. As regards the Union's proposal to add a new vision plan, the City's evidence is that its cost would be $17,640 a year for this bargaining group and $107,520 a year City-wide. As to the increase in the life insurance benefit, the City's evidence is that such increase is estimated to cost $8,341 per year for the bargaining unit and $42,103 if implemented City- wide. The City argues that it is opposed to these Union proposals for several reasons. One reason is cost. The total cost per year for the bargaining unit would be $57,181 for dental, vision, life and the Employee Assistance Program." City-wide, the dental, vision and life insurance increases would cost $321,499 per "The EAP is discussed separately, infra. 66 year. Another reason asserted by the City for its opposition to these proposals is that, as to dental and vision, they would result in a change from the long-term City practice and philosophy of providing the same medical and dental benefits to all employees or all similarly situated employees. The City was also concerned that the proposals would result in increased administrative costs, and that the dental proposal ran counter to the City's philosophy that employees should pay for part of the cost of health benefits. The City asks the Arbitrator to reject these proposals because they would result in different benefit levels for different bargaining units, and because of their costs if implemented City- wide. Before addressing the merits of these Union proposals, particularly the proposal concerning Section 13.1 of the MOU, a clarification is necessary and appropriate, given the undisputed record evidence. The dollar amounts specified in Section 13.1 are the particular rates for medical benefits only. Dental insurance and life insurance costs are not included in those figures. To determine the total amount of the FBP, the costs for dental and life insurance must be added to the Section 13.1 rates. City Exhibit 69 is very helpful in putting the current FBP in perspective. That Exhibit shows the current costs, the 67 distribution of the relevant costs based upon the various "party" rates, and the cash return to employees based upon which "party" rate and medical cost are applicable. While testifying with respect to these proposals, Lt. D'ORAZI clarified the proposal concerning Section 13.1 (Tr. Vol. XII: 1966-67). Thus, according to Lt. D'ORAZI, the figures set forth in Union Exhibit LA as the Union's Section 13.1 proposal were not intended to represent the rates for medical benefits only. Rather, this Union proposal shows the amounts applicable to the total flexible benefits based upon the relevant "party" category. So, to arrive at the "balance for medical" under the Union's proposals, which figures then would be the Section 13.1 amounts in the MOU, we must subtract the adjusted cost of the Union's dental insurance proposal ($78.58)," the cost of the life insurance proposal ($10.60), and the cost of the vision care proposal ($15.86)16 from the "total flexible benefits amounts" of $269.93, $432.68 and $529.69. Assuming, for the sake of this discussion, that the Arbitrator accepts all of the Union's proposals, the resulting "balance for medical" in the one-party, 'The dental plan had been priced at $100. During the hearing, Lt. D'ORAZI testified that the Union learned that the plan was available for $78.58 (Tr. Vol. XII: 1842). The Arbitrator, then, accepts the $21.42 adjustment, which amount will be subtracted from the Union's Section 13.1 figures. Those figures then become $269.93, $432.68 and $529.69. "According to Lt. D'ORAZI, the $15.86 per month per employee NN ... is also included in our proposal on Section 13.1 for the flexible benefit plan." (Tr. Vol. XII: 1860.) 68 two-party and three-party flexible benefits categories would be $164.89, $327.64 and $424.65, respectively. All of these amounts are less than the current "Balance For Medical" shown on City Exhibit 69 and as set forth in Section 13.1 of the MOU; however, because all employees presently enjoy cash returns of various amounts, depending on the "party" category and health plan utilized, such cash returns more than cover those differences. With all of the above in mind, we now turn to the merits of the Union's proposals, although in no particular order. At the outset, the Arbitrator must comment on one of the City's arguments against these, and other Union proposals; i.e., that the Arbitrator should reject such proposals because of the City's "philosophy" of providing the same benefits to all full-time employees, which, therefore, results in much higher costs to the City. That argument is unpersuasive. The Arbitrator is deciding financial benefits issues pertaining to a single bargaining unit, not all bargaining units with which the City must deal. To say that the fire fighters should not receive an increase in a certain financial benefit because of the cost of implementing such increase City-wide based upon a City philosophy is wholly unfair and unreasonable. If the City has such a philosophy, and it decides that it must, under all circumstances, adhere to such philosophy, that is the City's decision to make, but the Arbitrator will not reject a Union proposal simply because of the cost to the City based upon the 69 prospect of a City-wide implementation of such proposal. On the other hand, the Arbitrator is of the opinion that an employer need not be responsible for the full cost of health and welfare benefits provided to its employees. Employees should, to some extent, share in the cost of such benefits. It is on these bases, then, that the Arbitrator has considered these Union proposals. The Union proposal with respect to the life insurance component of the FBP is eminently fair and reasonable. The proposed increase from $15,000 to an obviously more realistic figure of $40,000 is long overdue. Moreover, the $8,341 per year cost for this bargaining unit is nominal, to say the least, and the increase will move the City from the bottom of the list of jurisdictions where life insurance costs are broken out to a more respectable position among such jurisdictions. Accordingly, the Union proposal to increase the life insurance benefit from $15,000 to $40,000 is accepted. The Union also proposed that a vision plan be added to the FBP. The cost of such a plan is $15.86 per month per employee, with an estimated annual cost to the City of $17,640 for this bargaining unit. Consistent with the Arbitrator's belief that employees should not have all health and welfare benefits fully paid by their 70 employer, this Union proposal is rejected.17 As regards the Union's dental insurance proposal, the evidence shows that the present plan is now approximately twenty years old, pays only 75% of fire fighters' costs, and sets other benefit limits resulting in substantial out -of- pocket costs for members to pay. Further, it is clear that the City currently pays the third lowest dental insurance premium of the 22 jurisdictions where such premiums were broken out, and the average of such premiums is $78.71, thirteen cents higher than the $78.58 cost of the Union's proposal. The City currently pays $56.20 per employee per month for dental coverage. The Union's proposal would require an additional City contribution of $22.38 per month for a total increase per year of $28,200 for the fire fighters. That increase is reasonable and, again, long overdue. Accordingly, the Union's proposal as to dental insurance is accepted. 17Once again, it must be noted that the record evidence is clear that all, or substantially all, fire fighters have a cash return in varying amounts as a part of their salaries because the City's total FBP contributions exceed what is currently required for health coverage (C.X. 69). To. the Arbitrator, contributions to health and welfare plans, like the FBP here, are not intended to provide additional compensation to employees. Where, as here, such additional compensation exists, the parties are missing the opportunity for some imaginative bargaining in order to take advantage of those excesses in City contributions so as to provide additional health, or other, benefits. The Arbitrator will leave that to the parties to explore. 71 13. Union Proposa]. tomend Section 17.2 (Vacation Benefits) Proposal: Fifty-six (56) Hour Workweek Employees Six (6) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of one .(1) year or more but less than five (5) bi x (G) years prior to such anniversary date. Nine (9) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of five (5) six (G) years or more but less than fifteen (15) iALetu (16) years prior to such anniversary date. Twelve (12) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of fifteen (15) siAteen (16)- years or more but less than twenty five (25) years. Fifteen (15) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of twenty five (25) years or more. This,Union proposal relative to fire fighters who work 56-hour shifts reduces by one year each step in the City's vacation scale and adds 15 shifts of vacation per year for fire fighters after 25 years of service. The Union points out that the proposal concerning the reduction of one year from each step is merely designed to memorialize the actual practice in the Department that the fire fighters' rate of vacation accrual increases on the fifth and fifteenth anniversaries, and not on the sixth and sixteenth anniversaries. There has been a long-standing tacit understanding in that regard between fire fighters and their supervisors. Lt. D'ORAZI testified that Chief LaGRONE acted in the recent past to 72 preserve this long - standing practice (Tr. Vol. XII: 1975). In addition to correcting the MOU language regarding the above anniversaries, the Union proposes to add a new; top step vacation accrual for 25 year veterans. According to the Union, this added language would bring the fire fighters into line with other City employees. Every other City bargaining unit receives a 25th anniversary vacation enhancement. It is inequitable, the Union asserts, for the fire fighters to be excluded from a benefit provided to all other job classifications. It is difficult to see any reasonable grounds for rejection of the Union's proposed 25th anniversary vacation increase. The City agrees with the first part of the Union's proposal regarding the "clean -up" language to the first three paragraphs (Tr. Vol. XII: 1982). The City is opposed, however, to the addition of 15 shifts of vacation for employees with 25 or more years of service because of the increased cost. The City's evidence is that the increase in cost would consist of the additional vacation payoff at retirement; $21,735 for 1995 -97, plus approximately $8,450 a year in additional overtime costs, which is the statistical midpoint. Moreover, the City points out that the addition of three shifts of vacation would provide suppression employees with more vacation than other City employees, including other Fire Department employees. Thus, as Chief LaGRONE testified, three additional 73 shifts would provide an additional nine days of vacation to suppression employees after 25 years of service, whereas 40-hour per week Fire Department employees would only receive 40 hours of vacation, or an additional week. The result would be that suppression employees would get more than five weeks of vacation after 25 years, resulting in an inequity among City employees, including 40-hour per week Fire Department employees. No dispute exists that the Union's proposal changing the sixth and sixteenth anniversaries to the fifth and fifteenth anniversaries is consistent with the long-standing practice in the Fire Department. Accordingly, as to such "clean-up" language, the Arbitrator accepts the Union proposal. The proposed additional language conferring 15 shifts of vacation on suppression employees after 25 years of service is quite another matter. The Union argues, inter alia, that such additional language is needed so as to eliminate an inequitable situation. That argument is unpersuasive. It is clear from the record that suppression employees, because of their particular (and unique) work cycles, presently receive more vacation proportionally than other City employees, including 40-hour a week Fire Department employees. For example, as pointed out by the City and supported by the documentary evidence, suppression employees with 15 or more years of service receive 36 continuous days off. Non-suppression employees, as well as all other City employees, with 25 or more years of service who work 40-hour weeks receive 35 continuous days off. Equity 74 dictates, then, that the proposed additional language to the MOU be rejected. Accordingly, consistent with the above, this Union proposal is accepted in part and rejected in part. 14. City Proposal to Amend Section 17.2 (Vacation Benefits) Proposal: Fifty-six (56) Hour Workweek Employees Six ±rL One Hundred Twelve (112) hours of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of one (1) year or more but less than six (6) years prior to such anniversary date. Nirie (9) s One Hundred Sixty Eight (168) hours of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of six (6) years or more but less than sixteen (16) years prior to such anniversary date. Twelve ( ) Two Hundred Twenty Four (224) hours of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of sixteen (16) years or more. The City points out that suppression employees currently receive 72 hours of vacation for each week of vacation earned, rather than 56 hours, which is the number of hours they work per week. Under the current practice in the Fire Department, a suppression employee with one to five years of service receives six shifts of vacation or 144 hours, an employee with five years up to 15 years of service receives nine shifts or 216 hours, and an employee with more than 15 years of service would receive 12 shifts or 288 hours (Tr. Vol. XIII: 2095-96). The City's proposal is designed to make vacations for suppression employees proportional with the actual workweek. 75 The City had several reasons for making this proposal. One reason was to provide uniformity of benefits among employees and groups of employees. Suppression employees are the only group of employees who receive vacation at a rate higher than the hours of work each week. The second reason for this proposal was to provide revenues for salary increases. As Chief LaGRONE testified, this proposal could result in savings from $5,000 to $10,000 per year to as high as $50,000 to $60,000 per year. Beginning in 1998, Chief LaGRONE estimates savings in overtime to be $31,037 per year. The final reason for this proposal was to reduce leaves that excessively impacted overtime. At the time this proposal w-ls prepared, the Fire Department had exceeded its overtime budget by 200%. The Union asserts that this City proposal reduces suppression employees' vacations by approximately 22% at all levels, and contrary to the City's argument that such a reduction was prompted by the desire to achieve "uniformity of benefits," the record evidence shows that uniformity or equality of benefits is non-existeRt. Indeed, this proposal would create other inequities. Thus, a 40-hour fire fighter would consistently accrue vacation faster at each stage of the tenure process. At the high end, a 40- hour fire fighter can reach a maximum accrual rate of 25 working days, or five work weeks of vacation after 25 years of service. In contrast, under this proposal, the maximum accrual rate for a 56- hour employee is 224 hours, or four weeks of vacation, after 25 76 years of service. The Union also points out that the overtime problem was in consequence of understaffing. The City failed to hire any fire fighters for three years, and during that period there were 15 retirements, as well. In addition, the City presented no evidence that raises were ever offered or contemplated using funds supposedly generated by cuts in vacation leave. Finally, the Union argues that any monetary savings from the proposed cuts in vacation leave are, at best, difficult to predict because there are so many variables. This fact is clear, given Chief LaGRONE's estimate that ranges from $5,000 to $60,000 per year.18 For substantially all of the reasons advanced by the Union, and based upon the entire record herein, this City proposal is rejected by the Arbitrator.19 18As in other areas in both parties' briefs, the Union argued Paragraphs 14 and 15 in the same section of its brief. The Arbitrator has not repeated in their entirety those same arguments under bothyaragraphs. He has, however, considered all Union and City arguments for both Paragraphs in coming to his decision as to each. nClearly, the three reasons advanced by the City as justifying acceptance of this proposal are without merit. The Arbitrator is satisfied that uniformity of benefits would not necessarily be achieved with this "take-away" proposal. In any event, uniformity of benefits is not always or necessarily a persuasive reason to reduce benefits for a particular bargaining unit. Moreover, no cogent record evidence exists which shows where the purported savings from this benefit reduction would be used for salary increases, and the record is clear to the Arbitrator that the overtime problem was caused by understaffing rather than suppression employees' vacations. 77 15. City Proposal to Amend Section 18.1 (second paragraph) and Appendix A (Sick Leave Benefits) Proposal: A working day is eight (8) hours for employees who work a forty (40) hour workweek and Le1 ve. eleven point two (11.2) hours for employees who are assigned to a fifty-six (56) hour workweek. (Corresponding changes would be made to Appendix A) This City proposal is designed to reduce the sick leave accrual rate for suppression employees from 12 hours to 11.2 hours for each month, which is the same ratio of hours worked to sick leave earned of all other City employees, including 40-hour workweek Fire Department employees (Tr. Vol. XIII: 2120-22). The City points out that this proposal, like other City proposals, was made to provide uniformity of benefits City-wide and to provide revenues for other economic items. The estimated savings in overtime costs in 1998 is approximately $4,986 (C.X. 13B). This proposal was not made to the fire managers because they do not receive overtime, so there would be no savings to the City. The Union points out that Chief LaGRONE could not estimate, with any reasonable degree of certainty, what the overtime savings would be if the Arbitrator accepts this proposal. Indeed, the Chief's estimate was as low as $500 to possibly as high as $10,000 (Tr. Vol. XIII: 2124). Moreover, Chief LaGRONE was instructed not to seek sick leave cuts for fire managers. Since fire managers accumulate sick leave reserve, it must be cashed out 78 at the time of their retirement. The result is permanently inflated pensions. There is, then, no uniformity or equality of benefits as suggested by the City. The Union concludes by arguing that the City has presented no evidence that salary increases were ever offered or contemplated using funds generated by sick leave cuts. Fire suppression's longer cycles of on and off duty days are a necessary antidote to the physical danger and psychological stress of fire suppression work. Fire fighters identify long-standing leave time arrangements as important compensation for the unusually demanding work they perform. It is implausible to think they would readily surrender such arrangements. Finally, the evidence is clear that the greatest single contributing factor to the Department's having exceeded its overtime budget was the City's failure to hire any fire fighters during a three-year period, along with the 15 retirements during the same period. For substantially all the reasons argued by the Union, and based upon the record as a whole, this City proposal is rejected. 16. Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.5 (Sick Leave During Probationary Period) Proposal. No sic ea ve s la 9 CctL a g ie - 111 • - Lt y. er, aLtec s.LA uiUiILi1 - II at..t...UM a 79 1 pay all aii ue a lJWC of provided tlle one hundred sixty (1�u (toi one } week cuirluyee5) o tr70 liu twenty our (224) e .Citty lA tivui g L tune ll�u� 9Cl wor }weeK einp.top luVnLf pccy std LuJ LeLjuzremenL nas lleen met. The Union asserts that this proposal to remove the current MOU language which precludes employees on probationary status from using sick leave is offered for health and safety reasons. Probation is a particularly stressful time for a fire fighter, with intense training demands, a steep learning curve, adjustment to a rigorous routine, heightened scrutiny from supervisors and peers, and pressure to perform. All of these things, the Union argues, create an increased likelihood of illness. If probationary employees do not have sick leave available, they will likely report for work, thereby compromising their health and the health of their fellow fire fighters. The City points out that it has two concerns with this proposal. The first concern is the increased cost for overtime replacement, although admittedly such cost is minimal at $650 per year. The second concern has to do with the need to evaluate employees during their probationary period. Thus, the City argues, it needs employees at work for an extended period of time in order to properly evaluate them. In addition, to accept this Union proposal would be inconsistent with the City practice, which extends to all City bargaining groups; probationary employees accrue sick leave but cannot use it during 80 the first six months of employment. As far as the Arbitrator is concerned, all of the City's arguments against acceptance of this proposal are unpersuasive. First, cost is, without question, de minimus, and cannot be seriously advanced as a reason to reject this proposal. Second, while the need to evaluate employees during their probationary.period is clear, if an employee is truly ill, he or she should be able to use the necessary amount of accrued sick leave in order to get well. Moreover, if cost is estimated at just $650 a year for overtime replacement, it is clear there has been little problem in the past with having to cover for a probationary employee who was not at work because of illness. The Arbitrator seriously doubts that probationary employees would abuse this privilege, but if the City has reason to question the good faith of a probationary employee's use of sick leave, it has other avenues it may pursue. The City's period of observation of probationary employees would not be compromised. Finally, the Arbitrator is not persuaded by the assertion that to accept this Union proposal would be City practice. The relationship between bargaining groups with which it deals need not inconsistent with a the City and the always be consistent under all circumstances.2° Fire fighters live and work in what 20The statement by counsel for the City in footnote 92 of her brief makes clear that, to the City, maintaining a consistent practice among all City bargaining groups is of paramount 81 might be compared to a "family" environment. A single, ill employee can spread that illness throughout the station, creating the potential for an even more costly situation than the occasional sick leave and assignment of a temporary replacement for the ill employee. Accordingly, this Union proposal is accepted. 17. Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.1 (Emergency Technical 1.-A Certificate) Proposal: An employee who has a valid and current EMT 1- A certificate will receive an additional ine y Iight. DU11a.L5 two and one half percent (2.5%) of a top step fire fighter's base salary per month. It. sia11 Le the sole Lespu y ie emp uyee ty meet airy t. L.Lficat.ioi ad ece/ i i a Liori reLlu_Liemeil s A e JLe o. ertiLicate. am. a e the recertificaLioli process. The City agrees to provide all training as required, on duty, and to pay all costs associated with training and licensing. ie posses 1 The Union submits, inter alia, that the real value of a flat rate differential for fire fighters with EMT certification was repeatedly eroded between contracts because of inflation. Since the late 1980s, the Union has pressed for, but failed to achieve, a percentage differential instead of a flat rate. However, the importance, and perhaps the only reason for its opposition to this proposal. If probationary employees are given the opportunity to use other foLms of leave, to trade with other employees, or take an advance on sick leave time, then giving them the right to use accrued sick leave for a legitimate reason does nothing more than break with the City's practice. That, however, is of no consequence to the Arbitrator. 82 City and the Union have consistently pegged the flat rate to which they have agreed to an amount equal to 2.5% of the top step fire fighter salary at the time. These flat rate EMT differentials equal to 2.5% of the top step salary were agreed to in 1988, 1991 and 1992. No subsequent increase has been granted. The Union's evidence is that, in reviewing jurisdictions listed in the Akins City Survey and in the Alameda County sample, a percentage differential for EMT pay, rather than a flat rate, is the overwhelmingly prevalent arrangement (U.Xs 45A and 57A). The Union points out that the differential compensates fire fighters for extensive training and study, as well as for the specialized emergency services they perform. Between 70% and 75% of calls answered by the City's fire stations are emergency medical calls, rather than fire calls. A pay differential encourages fire staff to maintain their credentials. The City should absorb , the Union concludes, the cost of EMS training. Newly hired fire fighters are now required by the City to have EMT certification. Initial EMT training takes 100-160 hours; specialized skills required of EMT's is proliferating. Recertification must be completed every two years, and since the demand for EMT certification originates from the City, it has the obligation to cover the fire fighters' tuition and related costs. The City points out that there are three parts to this proposal. First, it changes the differential from a flat rate to 83 2.5% of the top step base salary. Second, it requires the City to provide on duty training. Third, it requires the City to pay all costs associated with training and licensing. It opposes this proposal for three reasons. First, the proposal is inconsistent with the City's long - held philosophy that incentive and skills pay should be paid as a flat dollar amount. Using percentages to determine specialty pay, according to the testimony of Chief LaGRONE, is opposed because specialty pay then fluctuates or varies with whatever it is tied to, regardless of whether the relationship is reasonable. For example, when the City increased base pay by 9% in July 1994 as a result of the "PERS conversion," the EMT pay would have automatically increased by 9% also even though the increase in base pay was unrelated to EMT pay or the reason for providing EMT pay. Second, the proposal was opposed because the City was not in a financial position to be able to agree to an increase in EMT pay. The cost to the City would be an additional $16,280 in 1995, $22,680 in 1996, and $30,150 in 1997. Finally, the rationale for EMT pay - to increase the number of persons with this skill - no longer exists. All applicants must now have an EMT 1 -A Certificate and all fire fighters have the certificate, so there is no longer a need for specialty pay. The City urges the Arbitrator to reject this proposal and 84 to retain EMT pay, if at all, as a flat dollar amount. There is no justification, the City argues, for changing this "skill pay" to tie it to a percentage of pay, especially since the pay is no longer necessary to serve its intended purpose. To the Arbitrator, the record evidence is clear that EMT pay was initially provided approximately sixteen years ago as an incentive for fire fighters to obtain and maintain EMT 1-A Certificates. The City was considering ambulance services, and the proportion of emergency medical calls to fire calls was on the rise. Since 1984, the Fire Department has required that all applicants for entry-level fire fighter positions hold an EMT 1-A Certificate. Therefore, the intended purpose for the EMT pay differential no longer exists. That does not mean, however, that the differential should be eliminated. For quite obvious reasons, the Arbitrator believes a differential should be maintained. To obtain an EMT I-A Certificate requires many hours of specialized training, and to maintain such certification in this critically important function requires continuing education and training. The question, then, is not should the EMT differential be continued, but, rather, should such differential now be changed from a flat rate to a percentage of the top step fire fighter rate. Given that all of the City's fire fighters are required to have, and do have, an EMT 1-A Certificate, the Arbitrator believes that a flat rate differential 85 should continue.21 But what should the flat rate be? The City made no counterproposal here, as elsewhere, and the Union did not provide alternative arguments as an approach to deciding this proposal. Clearly, given the period of time the current language has been in effect, the flat rate deserves to be increased. Accordingly, the Arbitrator rejects this part of the Union proposal and sets the new flat rate at $110.00 per month.22 As to the part of the Union proposal that the City provide all training on duty and pay all costs associated with training and licensing, that is accepted. That is only fair and reasonable, given that the City mandates that fire fighters have the subject certification, and given, further, that the City has provided the recertification training on duty since 1994. Accordingly, consistent with the above, this Union proposal is accepted in part and rejected in part. 18. Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.5 and Appendix C (Educational Incentive *Proposal: Appendix C would be deleted in its entirely (sic) and replaced with the following:23 nThe Union's data with respect to other jurisdictions shows a mixed practice rather than a "pattern" of providing EMT pay as a percentage of base salary. nGiven the passage of time, the Arbitrator increased the $98 rate by 12%, and rounded up. That's fair and reasonable. 23By way of clarification, it should be noted that Capt. BUELL testified, inter alia, that the Union never proposed to "eliminate" 86 A) The purpose of this program is to encourage and reward members in the represented classifications for the acquisition and maintenance of higher levels of academic achievement. B) Requirements: Level I - no certificate/degree; 50 hours/year of education and training certified as relevant by the Educational Standards Committee. 2.5% Level II - Attainment of either: (a) AA or AS Degree or (b) Fire Officer I Certification (CFSTES) or (c) Fire Science Certification and FFII Certification (CFSTES) no requalification. 5. 0% Level III - Attainment of either: (a) BA or BS degree or (b) AA degree and Fire Officer II Certification (CFSTES) or (c) Fire Science Certification and Chief Officer I Certification (CFSTES) no requali- fication 7.5% Those who qualify for the education incentive program shall be compensated at the level attained as a percentage of top step Firefighters' salary. Appendix C in its entirety and replace it with the proposed language. Further, with respect to this Union proposal, Capt. BUELL made it clear that he had "... some different feelings on it, but since we never had a chance to discuss this in the negotiation process -- you know, there's even some recommendations I would have for even modifying this, but we can't do that. I have to leave this alone." (Tr. Vol. XV: 2321-23. See, also, Tr. Vol. XV: 2334- 35; 2356; 2361; and 2366-68.) Clearly, even from the Union's perspective, its proposal "needs work." 87 C) Procedure for Application: Members applying for educational incentive program shall make such application on the Department provided forms by May 31 for the following fiscal year. However, once a member reaches Level II, he/she shall not need to re- apply until such time as applying for Level III compensation. Once a member attains Level III compensation, he/she shall not need to re- apply for this benefit. D) Education Standards Committee An Educational Standards Committee comprised of a Union representative and a Management representative shall be established and convened annually for the purpose of determining successful completion of the purpose of determining successful completion of the educational level for which the employee is applying. The Union's evidence, through Training Director, Capt. BUELL, is that the existing educational incentive program is badly outdated. Much of the Union's proposal goes to defining more current standards aimed at bringing the City's program up to date. It is argued that effective education and staff development require the integration of a progressive set of rewards into a well conceived curriculum. This issue should not be used as a bargaining chip, or subordinated to tactical maneuvering. Capt. BUELL testified as to the multiple training tracks built into this proposal. The 2.5% and 5% differentials would, in all likelihood, be the most frequently realized by fire fighters, and neither is prohibitively expensive. The Union's further evidence is that seventeen 88 jurisdictions have education incentive programs (U.Xs 50B and 61B). Of these, eleven pay the incentive, which ranges from 2.5% to 7.5%, as a percentage of top-step salary within the trainee's job classification. The Union's proposal, it is pointed out, is based upon a percentage of top-step fire fighter salary. In that way, a trainee's rank does not play a role in the amount of incentive he or she receives. All employees receive the same incentive at the particular level covered by this proposal. The remaining six jurisdictions pay a flat dollar amount, ranging from $45 to $270. The Union also points out that the City's MOU with the police includes education incentive differentials roughly double what is currently offered to its fire fighters. Other bargaining units have such incentive programs which provide up to $500 per year. The Fire Management MOU has provisions identical to the fire fighters' MOU. This proposal, argues the Union, is plainly justified, supported by all of the evidence and should be accepted by the Arbitrator. The City identified several reasons for opposing this proposal. First, the proposal is contrary to its goal of eliminating the program. Second, the City is opposed to any program which calls for the differential or incentive to be based on a percentage of pay rather than a flat dollar amount. 89 Third, this Union •proposal called for an upward adjustment in pay, which the City was not in a financial position to provide. Chief LaGRONE estimated the cost of this proposal to be $96,436 for 1995 and a total of $275,185 for 1995-97 in excess of the amount of educational incentive pay already being paid (C.X. 138). Fourth, the City believes it is important to have a third person on the committee or board with a "broader view" than a fire management person would have. Clearly, a fire management person, the City argues, would have an inherent conflict of interest in making decisions that could impact his or her own entitlement to pay. Fifth, Chief LaGRONE believes probationary employees should not be eligible for the program, because they should concentrate on the probationary program. Finally, and most importantly, the City is opposed to this proposal because of its structure. Thus, according to Chief LaGRONE, the current program uses "valuable educational resource dollars" to pay employees for taking "what they like" (Tr. Vol. XV: 2430). Chief LaGRONE would prefer to use those educational dollars for a more organized program. The Union's proposal, the Chief believes, would exacerbate the problems that exist for the current program "for three times as much money." Moreover, it would not require recertification for Levels II and III which, as far as the 90 City is concerned, would act as a disincentive to further education. The City concludes by arguing that the Arbitrator should reject the Union's proposal because, among other things, it would reward employees for life with triple the amount of pay. Moreover, it would not achieve the original purpose of the pay, which was to encourage employees to obtain relevant education. The Arbitrator, like the City, could identify a number of reasons why the Union's proposal, as presently written, must be rejected. Under the circumstances, however, that is unnecessary. What Capt. BUELL and Chief LaGRONE want to achieve with an educational incentive or advancement program for current employees has considerable merit. The problem, however, is that they never thoroughly discussed how, if at all, this Union proposal could be "fine tuned" to reflect the needs of both parties. Capt. BUELL and Lt. D'ORAZI made that fact very clear in their testimony. Therefore, the Arbitrator will not issue an award as to this proposal that alters the existing language in Appendix C. The parties, then, will have the opportunity to do what should have been done long ago. Accordingly, this Union proposal is rejected. 19. City Proposal to Amend Section 25,5 (Edgcational Incentive) Proposal: Only employees hired prior to July 1, 1996 shall be covered by Appendix C attached. 91 In making this proposal, it is the City's belief that the reason for educational incentive pay no longer exists. In the past, employees had to get their education and training outside of the Fire Department. Now, however, the Department provides more training on its own. The City's intent was to use the freed-up monies for more internal training that would be more relevant to the demands of the job and make better use of the money. In addition, new hires already possess more education and have more certificates than was the case 20 years ago, and the City's proposal would save money over time. Finally, this proposal is consistent with the City's proposals to the other safety units, all of which agreed to eliminate the subject incentive prospectively for new hires (C.X. 79. Tr. Vol. XV: 2391). From the Union's point of view, the City's program is more cost effective than an attempt to replace it with comparable in-house training. The City's training resources receive low funding priority, and are typically reduced midway through the budget year. Capt. BUELL testified that a very large influx of funds would be needed to accomplish in-house training sufficient to compensate for the elimination of the Education Incentive Program. Capt. BUELL further testified that the Department is obligated to deliver specialized services, such as water rescue, fireboat operations, confined-space rescue and shipboard fire 92 suppression now, and it cannot fund and staff sufficient in-house programming in the near term to qualify personnel in time to meet these obligations. Off-duty training, therefore, is the Fire Department's only viable option. The Union argues that if, as the City claims, the City's proposal to phase out this incentive program is part of a larger strategy to upgrade training in-house, there would have been more concerted planning and communication between upper management and Capt. BUELL. Over at least a five-year period, the City has made only slight and infrequent outlays for education equipment and staff. The history is inconsistent with the City's stated intentions to expand and upgrade fire fighter training. In conclusion, the Union asserts that the City's fiscal analysis fails to identify what, if any, money it would direct toward pressing training needs if the Education Advancement Program is discontinued. Mr. RUNGIS' frank disclosure of the City Manager's categorical desire to liquidate the Program from every MOU suggests that no such plan to upgrade the program was, or is, contemplated. The public's interest in expediting specialized training is entitled to considerable weight. As far as the Arbitrator is concerned, what was appropriate with respect to Paragraph 18 is equally appropriate here. Suffice it to say that much of the Union's evidence and argument are worthy of further exploration by the parties. 93 Accordingly, this City proposal is rejected. 20. Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.6 (Ambulance Differential) Proposal: Two (2) employees assigned to each designated ambulance will each receive twenty aline Dollars and L'�ity Cenl.. (29.40) per twenty shift. seven and one half percent (7.5%) of top step base fire fighter's salary for all time served in that position for each pay period. The Union points out that the differential covered by this proposal has not been increased since January 1, 1992. Prior to that date, the differential was increased routinely as part of MOU settlements to maintain its value at 7.5% of the top step fire fighters base salary. The Union deferred an increase in this differential during the 1992 negotiations on the belief the City would restore the 7.5% relationship during the next round of negotiations. Clearly, the Union argues, ambulance drivers are overdue for a raise. The Union's evidence is that the duties and skills required of these fire fighters are diverse and demanding. They handle a wide range of medical and emergency duties, as well as being cross - trained to participate in fire suppression. Further, ambulance crews are frequently dispatched to mutual response areas, so they must be more knowledgeable than other fire fighters regarding inter - district fire fighting protocols. The Union closes by asserting that the merits of an 94 ambulance differential are manifest. The disingenuousness of the City's response has been demonstrated. The City can readily afford to increase this differential, but is unwilling to do so. This proposal should be adopted by that Arbitrator. The City points out that there are three ambulance units each staffed with two fire fighters with EMT Certificates. In 1992, the Union agreed to an increase equal to the CPI of 1.9%. The City opposes this proposal for several reasons. First, because the proposal is a cost item, the City was unable to agree to it. Second, the proposal calls for calculating the differential as a percentage of pay rather than payment of a flat dollar amount. The City examined all such proposals (specialty pay) item by item to avoid agreeing to something that would result in an unintended increase in specialty pay. Third, there is no reason for changing ambulance pay from a flat dollar amount to a percentage of pay. The Arbitrator's award should retain ambulance pay at its current rate or, at most, increase it to a dollar amount reflective of 7.5% of top step fire fighter salary. The City closes by asserting that the Union's arguments for an increase in ambulance pay are not valid, and that such an increase would result in administrative difficulties for the Fire Department. Chief LaGRONE testified that, because the current amount of ambulance pay is greater than the differential for 95 Apparatus Operator, the Fire Department has experienced difficulty in getting sufficient fire fighters to "act" as Apparatus Operators when needed. That was confirmed by Capt. BUELL. Increasing ambulance pay would exacerbate this problem. Moreover, there are now 10% more personnel available to share the fixed number of ambulance slots, so fire fighters will be assigned to such duty less frequently. The "burden" of such assignment is, therefore, alleviated. From the Arbitrator's point of view, this proposal, like the Union's proposal to amend Section 25.1, must be accepted in part and rejected in part. No question exists that the bargaining history between the parties has been to express this differential as a flat dollar amount rather than as a percentage of pay. The logic of that practice is inescapable, and it will not be disturbed by the Arbitrator in his award. Moreover, while the Arbitrator does not necessarily accept all of the reasons advanced by Union witnesses as being valid bases for increasing this differential, he is nonetheless mindful of the manifestly important function these fire fighters perform. They deserve an increase in their differential. That increase shall be $3.60 per twenty four hour shift for a total 96 differential of $33.00 per twenty four hour shift." Accordingly, consistent with the above, this Union proposal is accepted in part and rejected in part. 21. Union Proposal entitled "Suppression Augmentation" (New) Proposal: Suppression Augmentation: Whenever alternative staffing practices are utilized to cover suppression assignments all members assigned to duty shall be compensated for the increased workload and adverse impacts on safety. Compensation shall be calculated at 2.5% of each employees base salary payable for the entire time the alternative staffing practice is utilized, rounded to the nearest 1/4 hour. This proposal, the Union states, was developed as a remedy to problems that arose from understaffing of fire companies. The Union's evidence is that, under certain circumstances, a fire company, or part of a fire company, is placed on standby status for emergencies. Fire fighters, then, must remain available for possible emergency assignments, thereby possibly delaying or disrupting their customary duties. In some cases, response time to fire calls has been increased, which may have adverse safety implications on the fire fighters involved. The staffing compromises which are used may create other serious dangers, as well. The Union argues that, as with other purported "cost up. 'This increase is based upon 12% of $29.40 and then rounded 97 items," the City rejected this proposal out of hand; that the City's claims of insufficient finances have been shown to be inaccurate; that if this proposal is included in the final award, the City has the means to eliminate any resulting cost by returning to the better practice of hiring enough fire fighters to avoid staffing practices which would bring this proposal into play; and that if the City declines to increase staffing to needed levels, it is improper for the fire fighters to be placed under extraordinary burdens and pressures without due compensation. The City points out that this Union proposal does not define what is meant by "alternative staffing practices." The City's evidence, through Chief LaGRONE, is that the subject phrase would include "deferred status," staffing that drops below 27, and staffing with one less person and changing the combination for response (Tr. Vol. XVII: 2650-53). Moreover, as Mr. RUNGIS testified, the parties did not discuss this proposal in negotiations because it was not made to the City until after impasse was declared (Tr. Vol. XVI: 2636). In arguing that the Arbitrator should reject this proposal, the City points out that such proposal would result in an increase in compensation for all personnel on a shift, regardless of whether they were directly affected; that the proposal would be administratively complex to administer; that such staffing practices do not adversely impact safety; that "alternative 98 staffing practices" have been used since 1988 without any apparent Union concern regarding safety of employees; and that the City retains the right to set standards of service by reprioritization of work. The Arbitrator is satisfied from the record evidence that the cost of this proposal is negligible (C.X. 13B). This factor, then, is of no concern in deciding if this proposal should be accepted or rejected. The same is true for the City's argument that it would be "administratively complex" to administer this proposal. If a Union proposal is otherwise sound and supported by compelling record evidence, the Arbitrator would assign little weight to any potential administrative burden with which the City may be confronted. There are reasons, however, which convince the Arbitrator that this proposal must be rejected. The use of "alternative staffing practices" dates back to 1988. For ten years, then, no safety problems were shown to have existed, nor had the Union expressed such concerns prior to the presentation of this proposal in March 1996. The City, on the other hand, established that such staffing practices provide the same levels of safety as the more typical staffing (Tr. Vol. XVII: 2654-55). Additionally, the "deferred status" configurations that are used are precisely the same as used by the Union in order to maximize attendance at its meetings. Those configurations have 99 been accepted by the parties as meeting "acceptable emergency response safety standards" (Tr. Vol. XVII: 2669-70). Clearly, the safety of fire fighters is not adversely impacted by alternative staffing practices. Accordingly, this Union proposal is rejected. 22. City Proposal to Amend Appendix E ("Agreement Transferring 1082 Pension System Members to PERS") Proposal: All employees hired after July 1, 1996 shall receive the following retirement benefits. PERS Safety 2% at 55 full formula as provided in Section 21252.6 of the Government Code of the State of California, including the following optional benefits: a) 3ection omp g 1ies t b) Section 20835.1 (Limit Prior Service to Members Employed on Contract Date) Section 21361.5 (Local System Service Credit) c) d) e tio eaoe an nuse ted a cLua 0 e) Section 21263 and 21263.1 (Post- Retirement Survivor Allowance) f) Section 21266 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance to Continue After Remarriage) g) Section 21382.4 (Third level of 1959 Survivor Benefits). Employer will pay employer contribution. (Corresponding changes are proposed to Appendix E, pages 1-2) 100 This City proposal would change the retirement plan for employees hired after July 1, 1996. The proposed changes provide the 2% at 55 formula rather than the 2% at 50 formula, change the period for calculating "final compensation".from the highest one year to the highest three years, and eliminate the provision that allows a retiree to use unused sick leave in calculating years of service. The City points out that this proposal was made in an overall attempt to reduce costs on a long-term basis. A similar proposal was made to the fire management unit. No other bargaining units have similar benefits. The Union argues that this proposal creates a two-tiered retirement system which requires more recent hires to work five extra years before retirement. This City proposal works an injustice on the impacted fire fighters because of the economic loss, and it creates a serious health hazard in that the risk of heart disease climbs sharply at age 50. The Union points out that it has consistently rejected two-tiered benefit proposals of any kind. This proposal is a take- away, and it has no valid place in the Arbitrator's award. To the Arbitrator, an employer should only be successful, if at all, in the reduction or elimination ("take-away") of a previously negotiated and agreed to benefit when, through the negotiation or arbitration process, a quid pro quo is identified 101 and accepted by the labor organization or arbitrator as somehow justifying the benefit loss. That situation does not exist here. Additionally, it is important to note that the three other public safety groups in the City and most of the 27 jurisdictions surveyed by the Union have the 2% at 50 formula. The Arbitrator, then, will not disturb that formula for this Union. Nor will he accept the other reductions in benefits covered by this proposal. Accordingly, this City proposal is rejected. 23. Union Proposal to Amend Section 3 (Union Representatives) Proposal: Union representatives who are official representatives of the Union shall be given reasonable time off with pay to attend meetings with management representatives, or to be present at hearings where matters within the scope of representation or grievances are being considered. The use of official time for this purpose shall be reasonable and shall not interfere with the performance of City services. Such employee representatives shall submit through the Fire Department chain of command a written request for excused absence to the Fire Chief at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled meeting whenever possible. Except by mutual agreement, the number of employees excused for such purposes shall not exceed three (3). Union representatives may use their accrued vacation leave, compensatory time, and shift trades for the purpose of attending Union conventions, Union conferences and Union seminars. Such vacation leave shall not be counted against the total number of employees who may be on vacation leave at any one time, provided, however, that no more than one (1) employee per shift may be eligible for such vacation leave. Such compensatory time shall 102 not be counted against the total hours allowed per shift/day. Such shift trades shall not be counted as a part of the total number of trades an employee may make per month. The Union's evidence is that, over time, the City has adopted policies which have resulted in the relevant leaves under Section 3 occurring at the expense of co-workers' access to leaves and shift trades. The proposed addition to Section 3 would preserve the full access of co-workers to leaves and shift trades in the event a Union representative is away on Union business or travel. The Union argues that the bargaining history on this proposal suggests the City no longer disputes the Union's proposal, although its earlier monolithic position was clearly irrational and punitive. The City's evidence is that an existing General Order Bulletin restricts the use of compensatory time if 28 hours of such time have already been approved on the same shift. The City argues that this proposal would result in no limit on the amount of compensatory time which can be used on one shift, and that, while it would add administrative complexity for the City, it probably would not add additional costs. From the record evidence, it is clear no real dispute exists between the parties with respect to the Union proposal (C.X. 12F). That's good enough for the Arbitrator. Accordingly, this Union proposal is accepted. 103 24. Union Proposal to Amend Section 11.6 (Compensatory Time) Proposal: Employees shall be entitled to accrue compensatory time off up to a maximum of rmr - hundred forty four (144) Louis four hundred eighty (480) hours but may take no more than seventy -two (72) hours of compensatory time off in any one (1) month. Compensatory time off may be granted by the Fire Chief or his designated representative on a first come, first served basis. Requests for compensatory time off are to be submitted in duplicate on the departmentally provided four. Requests shall be made within ten (10) shifts of the date time off is requested. More than one request received by 1700 hours on the same day will be considered a tie in which case seniority will be the deciding factor. Requests for compensatory time off which requires overtime replacement will only be considered for four (4) hours or more to a maximum of forty eight (48) hours per shift. Once compensatory time has been requested and reviewed the employee shall be notified by the Fire Chief or his designated representative whether the request is granted or denied. If the request is denied, the employee will be notified as to the reason. In the case of compensatory time which has been granted and is canceled by the employee, all members on the shift shall be notified of the availability of the compensatory time and any other request shall be granted based on seniority. Upon an employee's service, the City obligation it has regarding pay off pensatory zme WI. separation from City will meet any legal toward the employee of compensatory time. it be iC SLed by an The Union's position on this proposal is that it gives 104 employees greater latitude in electing overtime pay or accruing compensatory leave for future use. The proposal also permits faster depletion by the fire fighters of accumulated leave reserves. The City is benefitted, because it lessens the City's obligation to maintain monetary reserves sufficient to compensate employees, if necessary, for unexpended compensatory time. The City was unable to estimate what, if any, cost it would suffer because of this proposal. Additionally, the Union points out that Chief LaGRONE now supports increasing the compensatory time usage limit from 28 to 48 hours per shift, and further testified that the City is in a better position financially to adopt this proposal now than it was in 1995. It is also important to note that the City refused to discuss this proposal during negotiations and mediation because of its purported cost to the City. In July, 1996, the City offered to adopt the Union's proposal with respect to the cancellation of scheduled compensatory time leave by an employee and how co-workers may claim the available time slot in order of seniority. The City points out that what the Union wants is to allow more employees to use compensatory time more frequently and to be able to accrue significantly more of such time. Lt. D'ORAZI not only testified as such, but also testified that this proposal would help the City reduce overtime expenses. The City's evidence, through the testimony of Chief 105 LaGRONE, is that the MOU limitation of 144 hours for compensatory time accrual is very important to the City because of cost implications. General fund dollars must be placed in reserve for each hour of compensatory time that is accrued but unused. Additionally, the hours of such time that can be accrued, the more the cost to the City increases over the years because an employee must be paid off at his or her current hourly rate, not the rate at the time the compensatory time was earned. In closing, the City argues that the Union's proposal should be rejected because of the uncertainty regarding cost. Further, increasing the accrual hours for 480 creates additional liabilities for the City which cannot be quantified. At a minimum, the Arbitrator should reject the increase in the maximum accrual of compensatory time hours. With respect to this Union proposal, the record evidence and the arguments of counsel provide compelling reasons why this proposal should be accepted in part and rejected in part. The proposal can be broken down into three parts. First, to increase the maximum hours that can be accrued to 480. Second, to increase to 48 hours the cumulative amount of compensatory time off per shift. Third, such time that is granted and later canceled be made available to other employees on the shift on the basis of seniority. Little or no dispute exists between the parties relative 106 to the second and third parts of this proposal (Tr. Vol. III: 380; C.X. 12F). Accordingly, the Union proposal is accepted as to those two parts. The real controversy has to do with the first part of the proposal; allowing employees to accrue compensatory time off to a maximum of 480 hours. It is clear to the Arbitrator that, as testified by Chief LaGRONE, the cost of this part of the proposal depends a great deal on many variables. The fact that cost cannot be quantified with a reasonable degree of certainty is a compelling reason to exclude this part of the proposal from the MOU. However, it can be stated with certainty that cost to the City will increase as the hourly rate of employees increases, because they must be paid off at their current hourly rate. Additional overtime costs, too, will adversely impact City finances. Accordingly, the first part of this proposal is rejected. 26. Union Proposal to Amend. Section 13.5 (bvloyee Assistance Program) Proposal: The City shall continue to provide for all employees an employee assistance program. The cost of such program shall continue to be paid by the City only during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding. Union wishes to increase the number of allowable visits to ten (10) per employee, per year. Presently, employees are allowed seven EAP visits per year The Union points out that this Program provides psychological, stress and health intervention which are critical to the well-being of public safety employees and their families. 107 Public safety employees are subjected to intense levels of physical and emotional stress. The Union's evidence is that, according to data provided by the City, EAP visits cost the City $2.99 for every three visits made by an employee or family member. Thus, the cost to the City of increasing such visits from seven to ten would be at most $3.00 per employee per year. Moreover, the City provides ten EAP visits per year to members of the police bargaining unit. Finally, in comparing the City to nine jurisdictions where EAP programs exist, three spend less per employee than the City, and six spend more. The Union closes by arguing that there seems to be no plausible reason to deny fire fighters access to additional stress intervention services, especially given the proposal's low cost. The City's evidence is that police are entitled to ten EAP visits per year, fire •fighters are entitled to seven such visits, and all other employees may use three EAP visits per year at City expense. The City estimates the cost of this proposal to be $3,000 per year. The City argues that one reason for its opposition to this proposal is cost." The City has consistently tried to have 'The City's brief discusses this proposal in conjunction with the Union's proposals set forth in Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 25 of the Court's Statement of Decision. The City puts the cost of all of these proposals, including the EAP proposal, at $57,181 per year for the fire fighters unit. If implemented City-wide, the cost per year would be $321,499. 108 uniformity of benefits. Another concern was that there would be an increase in administrative costs to the City. To the Arbitrator, it is more reasonable to consider this proposal independent of the other benefit proposals covered by Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 25 of the Court's Statement of Decision. Based on such review, and for substantially all of the reasons advanced by the Union and the entire record, this Union proposal is accepted. 27. Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.1 (Sick Leave Benefits) Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.4 CIllness in the Immediate Family) Proposal: 18.1 Benefits Effective July 2, 1981 regular and probationary employees shall accrue sick leave at the rate of one (1) working day per month, provided they have been in a pay status one hundred sixty (160) straight-time hours that month for forty (40) hour workweek employees and two hundred twenty-four (224) straight-time hours for fifty-six (56) hour workweek employees. Sick leave usage shall not be considered as a privilege which an employee may use at his or her discretion, but shall be allowed only in case of necessity of actual sickness or disability or in the event of an illness in the immediate family. For the purpose of this provision, immediate family means spouse; child or dependent living within the employee's household. At the City's request, the employee will provide satisfactory evidence of the facts justifying such absence. - • • • • - • V • • • o f accrued sic ieae in a y we ve consetive mo Li period peiod Eo r ±i1ries 109 IP • ie pLOT151Of1, imne la Le pelicteu Liyee .5 1iOue1iu.LU. the employee e will aha y iiteaii u , . . -L y Wi 111 L1 le y ,S LeLiu a tory The Union proposal, it argues, is designed to eliminate any disparity between the employee right to leave time usage to recover from their own illnesses, and the use of such leave to provide necessary care to immediate family members. The 24 hours limitation per year is insufficient to meet the needs which arise in many families. The present language is also cumbersome to administer because it is worded as a limit which applies to any continuous 12-month period. This proposal, on the other hand, simplifies the leave tracking process for employees and the City. Unfortunately, the Union points out, it was unable to obtain any response from the City during negotiations except its standard objection that it would not entertain any proposal which might entail cost. The City, however, never ventured calculations of what, if any, cost might be involved. Fair and reasonable consideration strongly supports inclusion of this proposal in the Arbitrator's award. The City's evidence and argument as to its opposition to this proposal are that 1) the proposal is an economic issue, 2) it would result in an inequity with other City employees who have similar restrictions on use of sick leave for family illnesses, and most public agencies place a limit on use of sick leave for family 110 illness, and 3) it opened up the possibility of abuse of the sick leave privilege. The current practice is not difficult to administer. Chief LaGRONE testified that his department keeps track of such usage for the Union and other Fire Department employees. Furthermore, the City's existing practices of allowing employees to use other leave, to trade shifts, to take an advance on sick leave, to use the Family Medical Leave Act or to take time off without pay already address the Union's concerns with respect to alleviating potential problems for families. Initially, the Arbitrator must note that no cogent*record evidence exists as regards what, if any, cost is involved with this proposal. On the basis of "cost," then, this proposal should not be rejected. The proposal should likewise not be rejected merely because it would somehow fly in the face of a City-wide practice. Quite simply, the Arbitrator is concerned with the narrower question of what is fair, equitable and reasonable for the fire fighters in light of all relevant and material evidence. It is important to the Arbitrator, however, that the City-wide practice and the existing language of the MOU here are consistent with what most public agencies do with respect to limiting the use of sick leave for family illness. Also important is that this proposal most definitely has 111 the potential for abuse of the sick leave privilege, but even beyond the question of abuse, it is clear that current City practices provide fire fighters with the much needed flexibility to take the necessary time off to care for family members who are ill. The question of whether or not an administrative problem exists is of no moment. Accordingly, this Union proposal is rejected. Based upon all of the foregoing and the entire record, the Arbitrator issues the following: AWARD A. The term of the Memorandum of Understanding is January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1997. B. For calendar year 1995, the City had the ability to pay for certain increases in financial benefits for fire fighters. C. As to Paragraph C of the Court's Statement of Decision and consistent with the Arbi- trator's Opinion: 1. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 10.1 (Work Schedule Paragraph 1) is rejected. 2. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 11.3 (Call Back and Minimum Overtime Requirements) is rejected. 3. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 11.5 (Acting Procedures and Pay) is accepted. 112 4 The Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 (Rates of Pay [Monthly Base Salaries]) is accepted in part and rejected in part. The monthly base sal - aries shall be increased as follows (a) January 1, 1995 3% (b) January 1, 1996 - 5 % (c) January 1, 1997 - 4% 5. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 (Rates of Pay [Salary Differentials]) is ac- cepted as to purpose but re- jected as to proposed percent - ages and modified as follows: (a) Apparatus Operator: 7.5% above top step Fire Fighter as of January 1, 1996; (b) Lieutenant: 13.5% above top Step Fire Fighter as of January 1, 1996; and (c) Captain: 22.5% above top step Fire Fighter as of January 1, 1996. 6. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.1 (Rates of Pay [Sixth Paragraph])is accepted. 7. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 12.2 (Starting Rate) is rejected. 8. The City Proposal to Amend Sec- tion 12.3 (Step Increases) is rejected. 9. The City Proposal to Amend Sec- tion 13.1 (Flexible Benefit Plan) and (Appendix E) is ac- cepted. 113 10.& 25. The Union Proposal(s) to Amend Section 13.1 (Flexible Benefit Plan) is (are) accepted in part and rejected in part as clari- fied by the Arbitrator. 11. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 13.2 (Dental) is ac- cepted. 12. The Union Proposal to Add Sec- tion 13.6 (Vision Plan) is re- jected. 13. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 17.2 (Vacation Benefits) is accepted in part and rejected in part. Changing the sixth and sixteenth anniversaries to the fifth and fifteenth anniversa- ries is accepted. The proposed additional language is rejected. 14 The City Proposal to Amend Sec- tion 17.2 (Vacation Benefits) is rejected-. 15. The City Proposal to Amend Sec- tion 18.1 (second paragraph) and Appendix A (Sick Leave Benefits) is rejected. 16. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.5 (Sick Leave During Probationary Period) is accepted. 17. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.2 (Emergency Techni- cal 1-A Certificate) is accepted in part and rejected in part. The City shall provide all training on duty and pay all costs associated with training and licensing. An employee who 114 has a valid and current EMT 1-A certificate shall receive an additional $110.00 per month. 18. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.5 and Appendix C (Educational Incentive) is re- jected. 19. The City Proposal to Amend Sec- tion 25.5 (Educational Incen- tive) is rejected. 20. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 25.6 (Ambulance Differ- ential) is accepted in part and rejected in part. The employees assigned to each designated ambulance shall each receive a differential of $33.00 per twenty-four hour shift. 21. The Union Proposal entitled "Suppression Augmentation" (New) is rejected. 22. The City Proposal to Amend Ap- pendix E ("Agreement Transfer- ring 1082 Pension System Members to PERS") is rejected. 23. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 3 (Union Representa- tives) is accepted. 24. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 11.6 (Compensatory Time) is accepted in part and rejected in part. The first part of the Proposal, allowing for the ac- crual of compensatory time off up to a maximum of 480 hours, is rejected. The second and third parts of the Proposal are ac- cepted. 25. With Paragraph 10, above. 26. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 13.5 (Employee Assis- tance Program) is accepted. 115 27. The Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.1 (Sick Leave Bene- fits) and The Union Proposal to Amend Section 18.4 (Illness in the Immediate Family) are re- jected. DATED: July 15, 1998 116 Revenues Required to Pay ``Aaaltlonal rinanc al buraens -iuvo - ivvi P''IPOSAL ARBITRATOR'S AWARD AUGUST 1997 OFFER COST OF ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDENS 3 Section 11.5 (Acting Procedures and Pay) N/A $213 in 1995 $126 in 1996 $2,964 in 1997 TOTAL (1995 -97) = $3,303 An employee who has been assigned and has successfully performed the duties of a higher classification shall thereafter receive the rate of pay attached to such classification for all of the time he or she is assigned to perform such duties. 4 Section 12.1 (Rates of Pav [Monthly Base 1995 - 0% 1996 - 3% 1997 - 2.5% TOTAL (1995 -97) = $991,859 1995 - (3 %) $ 189,602 1996 - (2 %) $ 331,166 1997 - (1.5 %) $ 471,091 Includes salary, holiday pay, FLSA, Acting Pay, Overtime. Salaries]) 1995 - 3% 1996 - 5% 1997 - 4% Section 12.1 (Rates of Pav [Salary 1995 - no change 1996 - no change 1997: AO. - 9% Lt. - 16% Capt. - 24% 1995: No change 1995 Differentials)) 1995 - no change 1996: AO. - 7.5% Lt. - 13.5% Capt. - 22.5% 1997 - same as 1996 1996: AO: from 6% to 7.5% = $14,868 Lt.: from 12% to 13.5% = $8,400 Capt.: from 21 % to 22.5% =$8,400 1997: included in August 1997 offer 6 Section 12.1 (Rates of Pay [Sixth N/A The cost for 1995 -97 would be: $0 in 1995 $0 in 1996 $0 in 1997 (estimated) TOTAL (1995 - 97) = $ 0 (Assumes Apparatus Operator Pay at increased rates per arbitrator's award Paragraph)) During the above assignments an employee may be temporarily displaced from such assignment and replaced by an employee on a limited duty assignment made in accordance with Section 25.3 of this Memorandum of Understanding. The employee on limited duty assignment shall receive any differentia! assigned to the position. At the end of such limited duty assignment the displaced employee shall be provided the option of completing the remainder of the displaced employee's assignment, which may be extended by the length of such limited duty assignments. EXHIBIT K Revenues Required to Pay "Additional Financial Burdens" 1995 -1997 PROPOSAL COST OF ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDENS 9 Section 13.1 (Flexible Benefit Plan) and (Appendix E) (Subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Paragraph 4 of Appendix E) (b) The City will allow employees hired after July 1, 1995, who retire to participate in the City's medical and dental plans for retirees provided the employee meets the following requirements: (1) retired employee has twenty (20) years or more of service with the Alameda Fire Department and (2) the retired employee retires (for service or disability), and (3) the retired employee actually draws a PERS pension within one hundred twenty (120) days of separation from the Alameda Fire Department. (c) In addition it is agreed that a retired employee will no longer be eligible to participate in the City's medical plan should the retired employee elect to be covered by another medical plan. Furthermore, it is agreed that a retired employee who once waives his or her participation in the City's medical plan coverage such waiver shall be irrevocable. None. 10 Section 13.3 (Flexible Benefit Plan) /Life Insurance Life insurance-$40,000 per year N/A 1995 - 97 None 11 Section 13.2 (Dental) The City shall make the necessary contributions per month per eligible employee toward the City's Flexible Benefits to provide the following dental plan to the employee and eligible dependents. This coverage will be mandatory for all employees. 1) Diagnostic and Preventative 90% 2) Basic Benefits 90% 3) Crowns, Jackets and Cast Restoration 90% 4) Prosthodontic Benefits 75% 5) Annual Benefit $1,500 per enrolled 6) Orthodontics $2,000 lifetime benefit per enrolled. N/A $28,200/year additional cost Total (1995 -97) = $84,600 (estimated) Revenues Required to Pay "Additional Financial Burdens" 1995 1997 ARBITRATOR'S AWARD AUGUST 1997 OFFER COST OF ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDENS 13 Section 17.2 (Vacation Benefits) Fiftv -six (56) Hour Workweek Employees Six (6) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of one (1) year or more but less than five (5) six (C) years prior to such anniversary date. Nine (9) shifts of vacation with pay if he or she shall have been in the service of the City for a period of five (5) six -(63 years or more but Tess than fifteen (15) sixteen-(46) years prior to such anniversary date. N/A None 16 Section 18.5 (Sick Leave During Probationary Period) ties- been -met- N/A Minimal 17 Section 25.1 (Emergency Technical 1 -A Certificate) An employee who has a valid and current EMT 1 -A certificate will receive an additional One Hundred Ten Dollars ($110.00). The City agrees to provide all training as required, on duty, and to pay all costs associated with training and licensing. $108 /mo. (Effective 1/1/95) $208 /mo. (Effective 10/1/97, firefighters only) 1995 =$1,982 1996 =$2,082 1997 = $2,196 TOTAL (95' - 97') = $ 6,260 ($2 month difference between August 1997 offer ($108.00) and Arbitrator's Award ($110). No additional cost after 10/1/97 for firefighters.) 20 Section 25.6 (Ambulance Differential) Two (2) employees assigned to each designated ambulance will each receive Thirty Three Dollars and 00/100 ($33.00) per twenty four (24) hour shift. $32.40/24 -hour shift (Effective 1/1/95) 1995 = $1,314 1996 = $1,314 1997 = $1,314 TOTAL (`95 -'97) = $ 3,942 ($.060 shift difference between August 1997 offer ($32.40) and Arbitrator's award ($33.00).) Revenues Required to Pay "Additional Financial Burdens" 1995 -1997 PROPOSAL AUGUST 1997 OFFER 23 To Amend Section 3 (Union Representatives1 Union representatives who are official representatives of the Union shall be given reasonable time off with pay to attend meetings with management representatives, or to be present at hearings where matters within the scope of representation or grievances are being considered. The use of official time for this purpose shall be reasonable and shall not interfere with the performance of City services. Such employee representatives shall submit through the Fire Department chain of command a written request for excused absence to the Fire Chief at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled meeting whenever possible. Except by mutual agreement, the number of employees excused for such purposes shall not exceed three (3). Union representatives may use their accrued vacation leave, compensatory time, and shift trades for the purpose of attending Union conventions, Union conferences and Union seminars. Such vacation leave shall not be counted against the total number of employees who may be on vacation leave at any one time, provided, however, that no more than one (1) employee per shift may be eligible for such vacation leave. Such compensatory time shall not be counted against the total hours allowed per shift/day. Such shift trades shall not be counted as a part of the total number of trades an employee may make per month. N/A COST OF ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDENS Minimal Revenues Requires to ray "Aaaltionai t-inanciai rsuraens" it, -iuut PP ^OOSAL ARBITRATOR'S AWARD 24 To Amend Section 11.6 (Compensatory Time) Employees shall be entitled to accrue compensatory time off up to a maximum of one hundred forty four (144) hours but may take no more than seventy -two (72) hours of compensatory time off in any one (1) month. Compensatory time off may be granted by the Fire Chief or his designated representative on a first come, first served basis. Requests for compensatory time off are to be submitted in duplicate on the departmentally provided form. Requests shall be made within ten (10) shifts of the date time off is requested. More than one request received by 1700 hours on the same day will be considered a tie in which case seniority will be the deciding factor. Requests for compensatory time off which requires overtime replacement will only be considered for four (4) hours or more to a maximum of forty eight (48) hours per shift. Once compensatory time has been requested and reviewed the employee shall be notified by the Fire Chief or his designated representative whether the request is granted or denied. If the request is denied, the employee will be notified as to the reason. In the case of compensatory time which has been granted and is canceled by the employee, all members on the shift shall be notified of the availability of the compensatory time and any other request shall be granted based on seniority. Upon an employee's separation from City service, the City will meet any legal obligation it has toward the employee regarding pay off of compensatory time. C.O.D. 2-3 (2!0100). COST OF ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDENS Difficutt to calculate. 26 To Amend Section 13.5 {Employee Assistance Program! The City shall continue to provide for all employees an employee assistance program. The cost of such program shall continue to be paid by the City only during the term of this Memorandum of Understanding. Union wishes to increase the number of allowable visits to ten (10) per employee, per year. 10 VISITS None. 3:kag:rja /P D\M N RSW\182\M I S C \19\EX H_K.O20