On October 7, 2013, the City of Davis received the recommendations of the fact-finding panel appointed to hear the labor dispute between the city and the Davis City Employees Association (DCEA).
The most recent round of negotiations with DCEA began in March, 2012. Since then, several other bargaining groups – representing a majority of the city’s employees – have reached agreement with the city on contracts containing much-needed economic concessions. DCEA is one of two groups, along with the firefighters, that have not yet reached agreement.
According to a release from the city, “During negotiations the City sought long-term structural budget changes in compensation costs, particularly pension and medical costs. These structural budget changes are necessary to address expected increases in CalPERS retirement contributions and in the City’s retiree medical liability.”
“The City is pleased that the factfinding panel agreed with the City’s proposed structural changes,” said the city. “However, the factfinder panel recommended that these changes be phased-in over a longer period of time and that the City provide additional pay increases. Whether these additional recommendations are feasible must be evaluated in light of the City’s fiscal condition.”
Last week, DCEA president Dave Owens spoke briefly during the public comment section of the Davis City Council meeting, and expressed his support for the fact-finding panel’s recommendations and urged the city to accept them.
As reported by the Vanguard on a number of previous occasions, back in 2010, the old council had reached agreements with all bargaining units except for DCEA. DCEA held out for a better contract and even the old council finally had enough and imposed the last, best and final offer. The problem was that the city failed to go through the entire process and the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) overturned it.
As staff now reports, “On a parallel path, the City and DCEA participated in a separate round of negotiations in 2012 in hopes of reaching a successor agreement to the existing Memorandum of Understanding. That process also ended in impasse, and the parties recently participated in a fact-finding hearing.”
In the lone dissent, Samantha Wallace, Commuinty Services Superintendent for the city of Davis, objected: “The recommendations by the Panel majority seem to simply rubber-stamp the DCEA proposals without logical explanation or rationale, and without even consideration of contrary positions and evidence in the record.”
The panel found in favor of DCEA on each of six issues: Grievances and Discipline Appeal Process, Water Study, Certification Issues, Standby Pay, Increase of Safety Footwear Allowance and Term of the MOU.
According to the report, “The Factfinding Panel had a telephone conference on June 26, 2013. The Panel discussed each of the matters presented.”
According to them, “The City’s position, as to all issues with respect to the 2009-10 negotiations, is that the complete package should be the current status quo under the 2006-2009 MOU without imposition of furloughs, pay cuts, or capping of the Section 125 plan, and also without any additional increases in standby pay or the boot allowance.”
DCEA proposed that binding arbitration becomes the final step in the appeals process for all grievances, including disciplinary appeals. The city countered that this is an enormous change and does not recommend the change at this time. The city’s proposal is to maintain the current status quo.
DCEA proposed that the MOU term should be four years, July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2013. The city, objected “to such a recommendation when a four year term has never been discussed nor suggested during negotiations. The City’s proposals for the 2009-10 negotiations were for one and three year terms. Similarly, the operative MOU term was for three years.”
Samantha Wallace strongly dissented from the panel chair’s recommendation, noting, “I was troubled by the process among the panel members as to what our recommendation should or would be.”
She noted, “When the panel held a teleconference to discuss the draft, and I raised points of disagreement, there was little dialogue on some of the recommendations as to why the finding or recommendations should be otherwise. I was informed that I could note my disagreements in a separate document.”
With regard to binding arbitration: “I dissent to the entirety of this recommendation by the Panel majority. I disagree that the existing Article VII of the Personnel Rules is in any way inconsistent with ‘principles of collective bargaining,’ as is claimed in the Panel opinion.”
Further, she wrote, “The evidence presented by DCEA demonstrated that various cities use various processes for resolving grievances and disciplinary appeals, which indicates to me that no particular method is required or even advisable.”
“There was no evidence presented indicating any actual bias by the City Manager or Personnel Board members, or that the City’s current processes had ever resulted in any unfair result, or that a DCEA member had ever even challenged a decision in court, as they are permitted to do,” Ms. Wallace continued.
Further, Samantha Wallace contended, “There was conflicting evidence about whether, or to what extent, DCEA’s arbitration proposals at the factfinding hearing had actually been raised during negotiations. While I am not a labor law expert, my understanding of the process is that we are to help sort out and make recommendations regarding issues and positions actually bargained about during the negotiations leading to this factfinding, rather than new proposals.”
Also, DCEA wanted to be part of the water study that the City “began some time ago in order to evaluate how the city provides water service and whether the water division (and its individual positions) are structured properly and efficiently for such operations.”
The city does not appear opposed to their involvement at the proper time. As Ms. Wallace noted, “I understand that DCEA wants to be involved in and offer feedback on the ‘Water Study,’ and I agree that is appropriate once the process has reached a point where there is some identifiable draft or tangible work product that could serve as the basis for such discussion and feedback.”
However, as she noted, “The evidence suggested the project has not yet reached that point. Therefore I dissent to the portion of the recommendation requiring the City to provide a copy of the report and other data by a date certain.”
There is also an issue of the standby pay policy, where DCEA wants to increase “standby compensation from 19 hours a week at straight time pay to 24 hours per week at straight time pay,” while the city wished to preserve the status quo.
As the city noted, “The dispute here is over the amount of the standby pay as the City has no objection to incorporating a standby pay policy into an MOU, once agreement on a complete package is reached. The basis for DCEA’s proposal for five additional hours of standby compensation are comparisons of other agency policies, which DCEA admits are a ‘mixed-bag.’ “
The city argued, “Such comparisons do not reflect a complete picture as to the benefits DCEA members and employees of these other cities or agencies are receiving. DCEA’ s current 19 hours per week is within the range of the comparisons.”
However, the panel ruled, “The majority of the Panel finds that DCEA has demonstrated that the standby pay which the City grants to employees who have standby duty is substantially less than the standby pay granted by other public agencies which the City has used in the past to compare wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for comparable job classifications.”
Samantha Wallace disagreed, arguing, “I disagree that simply because other agencies pay certain employees more for standby duty, the City should follow suit. We have no evidence before us to evaluate whether the standby duties themselves are similar, or whether the balance of the compensation package in those agencies is superior or inferior to the total package provided to DCEA employees. Further, I understand based on the evidence that the City’s standby policy crosses and affects employees in several departments and bargaining units.”
She argued for a more global review and, in the meantime, she does not recommend the increase proposed by DCEA be adopted.
Finally, she objected to the four-year term, noting, “The evidence presented demonstrated clearly that one-year, two-year, and three-year terms had been discussed, but never a four-year term.”
In her conclusion she wrote, “I am disappointed in this factfinding process, which I understood to be intended to help bring the parties closer together or to at least yield some reasoned recommendation to the City Council in our advisory opinion.”
She further noted, as indicated, “The recommendations by the Panel majority seem to simply rubber-stamp the DCEA proposals without logical explanation or rationale, and without even consideration of contrary positions and evidence in the record. I sincerely hope that the parallel process acknowledged during our proceedings (ie. the 2012 negotiations and factfinding) is more constructive.”
The city council is anticipated to determine next steps at their November 12th meeting.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dcea at least has been smart enough to keep their mouths shut through this process. that has enabled them to avoid what has happened to the firefighters.
[i]While I am not a labor law expert . . . [/i]
Remind us why this woman was involved instead of the professional(s)?
“Remind us why this woman was involved instead of the professional(s)?”
That’s a reasonable question. In the Government code it stipulates: “Within five days after receipt of the written request, each party shall select a person to serve as its member of the factfinding panel. The Public Employment Relations Board shall, within five days after the selection of panel members by the parties, select a chairperson of the factfinding panel.”