Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-29 - City Commission Special Meeting Minutes7525 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE 0 TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321-2401 TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTIONS/DISCUSSIONS SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA A Special Meeting of the City Council will be held on Wednesday, November 29, 1989 at 10:00 a.m. in Conference Room #2 (City Clerk's Office), City Hall, 7525 N.W. 88th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. The purpose of this meeting is discussion and possible action concerning the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) contract. FINAL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. R-89-299 PASSED. APPROVED amending Resolution R-89--288 by removing Section 4, which read, "The approval and ratification of this attached agreement is contingent upon ratification by the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) no later than 5:00 P.M. November 30, 1989. If ratification by the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) is not received by 5:00 P.M. November 30, 1989, Paragraphs 11.6 and 11.7 of Article 11 (Wages) are null and void.". All meetings are open to the public. Carol A. Evans City Clerk CAE/nr Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or ;.;wring, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such 'rose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes 4 t..; testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be basad AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS CITY OF TAMARAC CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Abramowitz called this meeting to Order on Wednesday, November 29, 1989 at 10:00 A.M. in Conference Room #2 (City Clerk's Office. PRESENT: Mayor Norman Abramowitz Vice Mayor Dr. H. Larry Bender Councilman Bruce Hoffman Councilman Jack Stelzer Councilman Henry Rohr ALSO PRESENT: John P. Kelly, City Manager Richard Doody, City Attorney Steven Oxenhandler, Director of Development Services Mike Couzzo, Director of Public Works Pauline Walaszek, Special Services Secretary The purpose of this meeting was discussion and possible action concerning the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) contract. SYNOPSIS OF ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. R-89-299 - PASSED APPROVED am ne drug Resolution R-89-288 by removing Section 4. Mayor Abramowitz said there has been communication problems regarding this matter. He said Steven Oxenhandler stated during the Budget process that the City's most important product went home every night. He asked City Manager Kelly to address the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) contract. City Manager Kelly said at the end of the negotiating session between the City and the FPE, the ratification sent to the employees was a package which included an offer of insurance to be provided by Cigna and Humana as well as raise increases. He said prior to the ratification, the City was advised that Cigna was withdrawing and, when the Union met to ratify, they were aware that Cigna withdrew but continued to ratify the original contract including Cigna. City Manager Kelly said the Union's letter to the City indicated that they ratified the original contract. He said when the Union was advised that Cigna was not available, all of the employees enrolled with Humana. He said the City has been served a suit by the Union indicating that the City did not offer the two choices. He said when the Resolution was presented to the City Council for action, it provided that the FPE employees would receive a 4.7% pay increase retro-active to October 1, 1989 and Humana Health Insurance. He said the Resolution also provided that if the Union did not ratify the agreement by November 30, 1989, without Cigna, the raise provision would be null and void. Page l 11/29/89-pw City Manager Kelly said the Union has not acted on this provision and Management's concern was that the rank and file would be penalized. He said staff would like to readdress the matter and provide the 4.7% wage increase. Mayor Abramowitz asked if City Manager Kelly was recommending that the City Council take action to provide the rank and file with an increase and City Manager Kelly said his recommendation was to provide an increase to everyone in the FPE Union. C/M Hoffman asked if City Manager Kelly was recommending that the City Council bypass the Union. He said the FPE Union submitted a letter to the City indicating that they would accept the package in its entirety or not at all. He said the City Manager was suggesting that the City Council ignore the Union and deal directly with the employees. City Manager Kelly said he suggested that there be a readdress provided by the City Council to allow the employees to receive their 4.7% increases. C/M Hoffman asked if the employees should be receiving the increase even though a contract was not ratified. He asked if the FPE Union ratified the contract and City Manager Kelly said this was his position. C/M Hoffman asked City Manager Kelly if he was asking that the City Council grant the FPE employees a 4.7% wage increase despite the fact that the contract was not ratified. City Manager Kelly said staff was asking the City Council to readdress the matter to allow the 4.7% wage increase. C/M Rohr said he understood that all of the employees in the City signed up for health insurance with Humana. He said this seemed to be a form of ratification because the employees agreed with the insurance available. He said there was no disagreement between the City and employees affected by the contract. He said if this was true, he did not see why the employees should be penalized. He said the Union would have to allow the employees to continue with their selection. Mayor Abramowitz said he did not agree with C/M Hoffman's interpretation of the City Manager's recommendation. He said no one would bypass the Union and go to the rank and file. He said this matter was misunderstood during Union negotiations and both sides made strong statements. Mayor Abramowitz asked why the City should deny the rank and file for something that they had nothing to do with. He said he was advised by the Labor Counsel that he did not see a Judge ruling against the City on this matter; however, this issue did not apply to the employees. He said if the case was the City offering one thing but the employees wanting another, it would be a different story. Mayor Abramowitz said he felt confident that the matter would be resolved and he understood the anxiety in getting the problem resolved in a clean and legal manner; however, he would not vote to take away what the rank and file was offered and entitled to because of a misunderstanding. Page 2 1 1 1 11/29/89-pw C/M Hoffman asked if the rank and file had the power to request the Union to call for a ratification vote and C/M Rohr replied, yes. C/M Hoffman said the City would not be penalizing the employees. C/M Hoffman said the bargaining agency for the FPE employees was the FPE and to make a settlement around the Union seemed to be Union busting. He said he did not want to be involved in Union busting. He said the employees could contact their Union regarding ratifying or rejecting the contract. He said the last written word submitted to the City by the Union was rejection. He said if the Union was willing to change the rejection to acceptance, he would vote to provide the increase. He said the City should not sign an open end agreement allowing the Union to delay the ratification and receive a 4.7% increase retroactive to October 1, 1989. C/M Hoffman said the City provided the Union a fair offer and they had the right to act on the offer. He said he was willing to provide an extension to the Union in making their decision. He suggested that the Union be given a two week extension to call a meeting and ratify the agreement so that the wage increases could be provided retroactive to October 1, 1989. He said he could not vote on an open end agreement where the City provided all of the benefits and allow the Union to take their time to ratify the contract. C/M Rohr said he agreed with C/M Hoffman by extending the ratification time. He said there was a misunderstanding; however, the employees accepted the insurance and the City should give the Union time to receive a ratification vote. He suggested that an extension be given to the Union to ratify the contract. Mayor Abramowitz asked what the City would do if the Union did not ratify the contract at the end of the two week extension. C/M Rohr said this was not the City Council's concern; however, he felt that the Union would ratify the contract. He said he did not want to answer this question because he could not answer something that may not happen. C/M Hoffman said if the Union did not ratify the contract at the end of the extension, the City's offer should be null and void and negotiations should continue. C/M Hoffman said a Resolution regarding health insurance was approved and the City would not take the coverage away from the employees. He said a two week extension was enough time for the Union to call a ratification meeting or for the rank and file to force the Union to ratify. He said if this was not done within two weeks, the City's offer should be null and void and negotiations should begin again. C/M Stelzer asked if the Bargaining Unit ratified the contract or reported to the rank and file for an action on ratification. C/M Rohr said the negotiating unit was offered a contract and, when an agreement was arrived at, the unit reported to the rank and file for acceptance for ratification. Page 3 11/29/89-pw C/M Stelzer said if the rank and file signed up for Humana insurance, they actually ratified a contract and C/M Rohr said legally, the contract was not ratified until there was a ratification vote. City Attorney Doody said there could not be a contract until there was a meeting of the minds. He said the City Council was trying to figure out the intent of the Union; however, the only persons that could inform the City of the Union's intent was the Union. He said until the intent was submitted by the Union, the City Council could not have a meeting of the minds. City Attorney Doody said it was obvious that a contract was ratified with two insurance carriers and the City had to understand the intent of this ratification before anyone could determine if there was a contract between the City and the Union. City Manager Kelly asked if the intent was stated when the Union filed a lawsuit against the City for not offering the two insurance carriers. City Attorney Doody said this was an indication but not the intent. He suggested that the City Council not draw intent from the lawsuit. He said the City Council seemed to be anticipating someone else's intent when they should be finding their own intent. C/M Rohr said he did not know how the Union could expect the City to provide something that was being refused to the City. He said the Union ratified a contract with Cigna and Humana and this was what they wanted. He said the City could not provide this and the Union should accept this. He said the employees saw the reality and signed up with Humana. He said the Union may be in a serious situation with the employees if a contract was not ratified and the employees lost their benefits. He said the City was willing to give the employees everything but Cigna and he did not feel that the Union would turn the matter around providing the City gave the Union a chance to ratify the contract with the rank and file. He said if the City gave the Union two weeks to ratify, a contract would be provided. V/M Bender said negotiations took place with the bargaining units and a contract was ratified as per a letter dated October 31, 1989. He said due to mitigating circumstances, one of the insurance carriers withdrew at the last minute which made the ratification letter incomplete. He said the Union may want the opportunity to correct a sentence in the contract which stated that the employees would have the right to choose between the two health carriers. V/M Bender said because the employees chose the Humana insurance, this was an indication that this was their intent in the first place. He said the letter accepted the 4.7% increase, etc., and the City Council should provide the increase retroactive to October 1, 1989. C/M Hoffman said the City Council did not have this authority because a ratified contract was not available. Mayor Abramowitz asked what would happen if the City Council provided what was offered. He said he did not want to penalize the employees because of a Page 4 11/29/89-pw F-- I misunderstanding between the two parties. He said he understood that the negotiating team felt that they did not want to deny the rank and file what was offered. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City Council could approve a Resolution allowing the increase with ratification from the Union. City Attorney Doody said it would be the Union's decision to inform the City of their intent. He said the Union could state that they originally agreed with the City; therefore, there was a contract or decide that another vote was needed regarding the language in the contract concerning the two insurance carriers. He said this was the Union's call and not the City's. C/M Hoffman asked if the Union should make their determination before the City upheld their contract. City Attorney Doody said he did not know the Union's original intent when they approved the contract containing two insurance carriers knowing that there would only be one insurance carrier available. He said to have a contract, both sides have to agree, regardless of what order the contract was approved. He said if the City Council submitted a ratified contract to the Union, they could accept it or amend it and resubmit it back to the City Council. Mayor Abramowitz asked if the City was vulnerable in any way and City Attorney Doody said the City was no more vulnerable than it already was. He said the City recently had an Unfair Labor Practice filed against it. C/M Hoffman asked if the City Council should approve the contract and provide a specified period of time to the Union to approve the contract or provide an open ended agreement that would allow the Union to continue without ratification. City Attorney Doody said this was a policy decision and he could not answer it. He said the City Council should decide what they wanted to do and give direction to the City Attorney's Office. C/M Rohr said when the Union ratified the contract, they knew that Cigna was no longer a carrier and City Attorney Doody said this was trying to decide the intent of the Union. City Manager Kelly said the Union was aware of this when they ratified the contract and Mayor Abramowitz said until the two letters from Cigna were received, the City was being accused of forcing Cigna out. C/M Rohr asked if the Union knew that there was no second company when they voted to ratify the contract and City Manager Kelly said the Union was aware of Cigna withdrawing; however, they did not believe it. Mayor Abramowitz said the Union did not believe that Cigna withdrew because they were told that the City forced Cigna out. C/M Hoffman said the Union acted on an untruth; therefore, they should correct the problem. Page 5 11/29/89-pw C/M Rohr said the City had a contract which should be ratified by changing the November 30, 1989, deadline to an additional two weeks. C/M Hoffman said the employees were advised that the tentative agreement was a complete package and would be accepted in total or not at all. He said the Union did not ratify a contract that the City could provide. He said the Union ratified a contract that could not be provided. Mayor Abramowitz asked C/M Hoffman what he recommended and C/M Hoffman said the Union should ratify what the City could provide. C/M Rohr said he was saying the same thing except he wanted the Union to ratify the contract within 2 weeks. C/M Hoffman said he agreed with this. C/M Stelzer asked how long the City had before the lawsuit went to trial and City Attorney Doody said there was no deadline and the process could continue for a few months. He said the Union filed the action and the City was responding to it. C/M Stelzer said it seemed that the Union and employees did not have a meeting of the mind. He said the City was offering a wage increase and health insurance and the City Council should approve legislation indicating that because the Union and the rank and file could not agree, an extension for ratification would be granted, which would be to December 15, 1989. He said if the Union did not ratify the contract by that date, the City would be accepting the employees ratification. C/M Hoffman said the employees did not ratify the contract and C/M Stelzer said the employees ratified the contract by accepting the health insurance. Mayor Abramowitz said there seemed to be two different opinions being discussed. He said one opinion was to delete the compliance clause in the Resolution and provide an additional two weeks for the Union to ratify the contract. C/M Stelzer asked what would occur if the Union did not comply within two weeks and Mayor Abramowitz said C/M Hoffman suggested that the contract become null and void if this was to occur. C/M Stelzer said he did not agree with this. Mayor Abramowitz said the other opinion was to accept that there was a contract ratification and, because there was a misunderstanding, the employees should receive the wage increases with a request that the Union, employees and City meet and clear the problems. Mayor Abramowitz said Alan Ruf, Consulting Attorney, said this was being done with the Union Attorney. C/M Rohr asked if the City would agree to a new contract providing for the elimination of Cigna, which was, in effect, another offer to the Union. He said as per the Resolution, the contract would be null and void at 5:00 P.M. Page 6 1 1 1 11/29/89-pw City Attorney Doody said the Union sent the City a purposely vague and ambiguous statement. He said this was why the City Council was having a hard time making a decision. He said the City Council needed to decide what they wanted to do. C/M Rohr suggested the City make a final offer to the Union by providing the same contract with the deletion of Cigna. He said the Union would be forced to go to the rank and file for a ratification vote. He said if the City provided a final offer, the Union would have to go for ratification. Mayor Abramowitz said the City Attorney was correct in stating that the Union deliberately sent an ambiguous and vague statement to the City. He asked if the City Council could rescind the existing Resolution and adopt another Resolution with the elimination of Cigna only. C/M Rohr said the Union would have to meet with the rank and file for another vote and C/M Hoffman asked what would occur if the Union did not go for another vote. Mayor Abramowitz said the law indicated that the Union had to go back to the rank and file for a vote if there was another contract submitted. C/M Rohr said whether the Union wanted to or not, they had to take a final offer back to the rank and file for a vote. City Attorney Doody said the City Council already did this. He said the City Council approved a Resolution which did not include Cigna and requested the Union to ratify the contract by November 30, 1989 at 5:00 P.M. V/M Bender said the City Council had to make a policy decision and the legal concerns should be handled by the City Attorney's Office. He said the City Council had to give the City Attorney direction and he felt that the wage increase of 4.7% retroactive to October 1, 1989 should be granted. He asked the City Attorney how he would handle this matter legally. City Attorney Doody said if the City Council wanted to provide the wage increase of 4.7%, he would suggest that Section 4 of the existing Resolution be deleted and the City Council take the position that they ratified the contract. He said the Union would have to make their own interpretation from their own legal standpoint as to whether or not their original vote should remain. C/M Stelzer said the City Council should not admit a mistake by stating that the City would be changing their original offer of having Cigna. He said the City notified the Union that there would be one insurance company available, which was ratified by the employees and the Union did not approve of the contract because two insurance carriers were not available. City Attorney Doody said the City Council could control their destiny; however, the Union's destiny could not be controlled by the City Council. C/M Stelzer said the City Council had to give a contract to the Union indicating that the wage increases and one Page 7 11/29/89-pw insurance carrier would be provided to the employees. He said the Union should be given until. December 15, 1989, to ratify the contract. C/M Hoffman said the City already informed the Union of this and City Attorney Doody said this was done except by tomorrow, the City would be rescinding the contract. City Attorney Doody read Section 4 of Resolution R-89-288 into the record as follows: "SECTION 4: The approval and ratification of this detached agreement is contingent upon ratification by the Federation of Public Employees (FPE) no later than 5:00 P.M., November 30, 1989. If ratification by the FPE is not received by 5:00 P.M., November 30, 1989, Paragraphs 11.6 and 11.7 of Article XI, Wages, are null and void." * C/M Hoffman MOVED to AMEND the Resolution to read, "No * later than 5:00 P.M., December 15, 1989." City Attorney Doody said Temp Reso. #5623 would amend Resolution R-89-288 by changing thedatefrom November 30, 1989, to December 15, 1989 at 5:00 P.M. * C/M Rohr SECONDED C/M Hoffman's Motion. C/M Hoffman said his Motion would allow the Union an additional two weeks to ratify the contract. City Attorney Doody said the Motion on the floor was to extend the period in which the Union had to ratify the contract and, if the contract was not ratified, the Article would be null and void. He said the contract would provide one health insurance carrier and a 4.7% increase retroactive to October 1, 1989. He said if the Union did not do this by December 15, 1989 at 5:00 P.M., the wage increase would be null and void. Mayor Abramowitz said the City Attorney indicated that if the City Council approved the contract, the Union would have to make a decision on the contract by accepting it or calling for another vote. TAPE 2 C/M Hoffman said his Motion placed the responsibility on the Unions by requiring them a period of time to act on the contract. He said he did not approve of an open end contract that would allow the Unions to take as much time as they wanted to ratify the contract and continue receiving the benefits the City agreed to. C/M Hoffman said obviously the rank and file approved of what the City did and wanted an agreement; therefore, the rank and file should force the Union to ratify or call a vote on the contract within the next two weeks. He said if the City Council passed the Resolution, they were making the Union responsible for the final ratification. He said if the City Council did not approve the Resolution, no one would be responsible. C/M Rohr said precedence was set every time the City Council acted and, if a Union felt that they did not have to ratify contracts on a deadline set by the City 1 1 Page 8 11/29/89-pw Council, it would set a bad principal on negotiations. He said all negotiations were based on the fact of a meeting of the minds at which point ratification must take effect. Mayor Abramowitz said he has dealt with Unions for 30 years and almost all of the contracts provided for a date certain on ratification. C/M Hoffman said this was not a usual negotiating situation and he felt that the Union was not acting with the agreement of the rank and file. He said he would like the rank and file to force the Union to take some action within a reasonable period of time. C/M Stelzer said the Motion was only extending the ratification time by two weeks. He said if the Unions did not ratify the contract within 15 days, the contract would be null and void. C/M Hoffman said the voiding of the contract should not be based on the fact that the wage raises would not be reached. Mayor Abramowitz said he was trying to be fair and equitable and come to a meeting of the minds. C/M Rohr asked if the City Council wanted to extend the ratification compliance to one month. Mayor Abramowitz said he understood the City Attorney's suggestion and he felt that it was feasible. City Attorney Doody said V/M Bender asked how the City Council could grant the 4.7% increase and he answered that this could be done by deleting Section 4 of the Resolution so that the two Articles would be approved. He said the City Council would be taking the position that the contract was being ratified. He said the City Council could not control how the Union would view this action. He said it was possible that the Union would view their prior vote with the two carriers as good or the Union could have another vote to ratify the contract for one insurance carrier. City Attorney Doody said the City Council was trying to find a way to force the Union to take a course of action; however, there was no way to do this because the Union always had the option to view the matter differently. He said the Union would at some time have to make a decision about the contract. V/M Bender said he made an administrative decision and the City Attorney advised the City Council how to handle the decision. He said he agreed with the City Attorney's suggestion. C/M Hoffman asked when the increases would be granted if the City Council acted on the City Attorney's suggestion and City Attorney Doody said the increases would be retroactive to October 1, 1989. C/M Hoffman asked if the City could be paying the increases for 6 months without having the Union ratifying the contract. He said the City and Union could continue negotiating while the increases were being granted. Page 9 11/29/89-pw City Attorney Doody asked what the negotiations would be about and C/M Hoffman said another carrier for the insurance. C/M Hoffman said at this time, the contract has not been accepted by the Union. City Attorney Doody said if the Union did not accept the City's contract, nothing more could be done because the Union already filed an Unfair Labor Practice suit. He said if the Union went forward with the suit, the City would have to respond; however, the Union may decide to agree with the contract and withdraw the suit. Mayor Abramowitz said he wanted the City Council to make a decision that put the City and Union on the right path. He said he felt this matter was a misunderstanding and would be straightened out. He said if there was any vulnerability on the City's part, he would not be interested in a solution. C/M Hoffman asked if Mayor Abramowitz felt that the matter could be corrected in two weeks and Mayor Abramowitz said he did not know. C/M Hoffman asked how Mayor Abramowitz believed that the matter could be corrected in the future. C/M Rohr said he agreed with City Attorney Doody's suggestion. * C/M Rohr WITHDREW his Second on C/M Hoffman's Motion. City Attorney Doody suggested that the City Council adopt Temp. Reso. #5623 which would amend Resolution R-89-288 to delete Section 4 in its entirety. C/M Rohr suggested that the record reflect that the City Council would be making the change because they agreed that the employees accepted the offer. C/M Stelzer asked if a deadline for ratification by the Union would be set and Mayor Abramowitz replied, no. C/M Hoffman said the City Council was stating that the Union was correct and the City was wrong. Mayor Abramowitz disagreed with C/M Hoffman and C/M Stelzer asked if the employees would immediately be receiving an increase. Mayor Abramowitz replied, yes. * V/M Bender MOVED to APPROVE Temp. Reso. #5623 which would * amend Resolution R-89-288 by delete g Sec on 4 in its * entirety, SECONDED by C/M Rohr. Mayor Abramowitz said the City Council felt that there was a contract accepted by the rank and file and he would like the contract ratified as soon as possible to bring peace and harmony to the City. VOTE: Mayor Abramowitz - Aye V/M Bender - Aye C/M Hoffman - Nay C/M Rohr - Aye C/M Stelzer - Aye 1 1 Page 10 11/29/ 89--pw 1.1 C/M Hoffman asked the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles on private home lawns. Mayor Abramowitz asked if C/M Hoffman was referring to single-family homes only. City Attorney Doody suggested that he investigate this matter because there may be a problem in trying to distinguish between a condominium and single --family home. V/M Bender suggested that the City Council express their interest for the City Attorney to investigate the matter before an Ordinance was drafted. City Attorney Doody asked if C/M Hoffman was referring to swales and C/M Hoffman said he was referring to lawns in front of private homes. ** The following Vote is for an expression of interest by the City Council for the City Attorney to investigate the legality of an Ordinance prohibiting motor vehicles from parking on lawns. ]VOTE: Mayor Abramowitz - Aye V/M Bender - Aye C/M Hoffman -- Aye C/M Rohr -- Aye C/M Stelzer - Nay With no further business, Mayor Abramowitz ADJOURNED this meeting at 11:10 A.M. N AN ABRA OWITZ, MAYOR rzz CAROL A. VANS, CITY CLERK "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $88.80 or $11.10 per copy to inform the general public, public officers and employees of recent opinions and considerations of the City Council of the City of Tamarac." L1'1' Y OF TAMARAC APPROVED AT MEETING OF l o JD Clty Cterk Page 11