12-23-1974 - Special 2 Meeting - MinutesMINUTES OF ADJOURNEDyREGUL'AR`MEETING OF THE -CITY -COUNCIL
CITY OF WEST-COVINA, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 23, 1974
A special meeting of the City Council called to order at 4:35 P.M.
in the West Covina Council Chambers by Mayor Chester Shearer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Shearere Councilmen: Browne, Miller;
'.Chappe'll: - ,T�pe•
Others Present: George Aiassa, City Manager
Lela Preston, City Clerk
George Wakefield, City Attorney
Leonard Eliot, Controller
Kevin Northcraft, Administrative Asst.-
Janet Williams, Administrative Analyst
Calvin Wetherbee, Chief, Fire Department
Harold Swartz, Batt. Chief, Fire Department
J. Nicholas Counter III, Attorney
Richard J. Smith, Business Representative,
Ca. Teamsters Public Employees Union
Charles Bahn, President, Firemens Assoc.
Michael Holle, Fire Department
Larry Kliewer, Fire Department
Mayor Shearer: This is a continuation of a Grievance
Hearing begun last Monday, December 16,
1974. Due to the length of the Hearing,
and due to some conflicts the Council was unable to deliberate
and reach a decision. The purpose 'of the meeting today is for
Council discussion and eventually, I hope, a decision in the
matter.
Councilman Browne; Mr. Mayor, after weighing the testimony
of those who appeared at the last meeting,
I feel that there is kind of a void in
understanding in so far as the Article 2.3 is concerned in the
Agreement. In as much as the Memorandum of Understanding for
the year of 1974-75 contained the same wording in Article 2.3
as that of the same Memorandum and Article in the year of 1973-
74 and that the practice of replacement assignment procedure
was applied in basically the same manner in 1973-74, it makes
me rather concerned now that we are faced with a grievance.
Whether or not the Meet and Confer sessions that both parties
sat in were consummated with a clear understanding of agreement
between both parties, this,I think, is probably where the
problem lies.
I would, in my opinion, state that Article
2.3 is, and has been;for the past two or three years, rather
ambiguous and can be�a continued source of problem for both
parties. The words "where possible," however interpreted,
will be the source of conflict. It would seem that any intended
agreement or understanding relating to Article 2.3 should be
more specifically spelled out. In essence, wherever a call back
or a move"up procedure is implemented, both parties should be in
agreement -of' -the method of implementation, of whatever way you
are going to operate it.
- 1 -
CITY COUNCIL
Grievance Hearing
December 23, 1974
Page Two
Testimony on the part of both parties
indicate that assumptions of blame can be directed to the
basics of the Meet and Confer. If the Association had spelled
out the desired changes in Article 2.3, and that these changes
were not made, I would think it would be their reponsibility
• at the time it went before the group for ratification to call
for the correction.
It was also stated that there was a verbal
agreement relative to the implementation "wherever possible".
A verbal understanding, in my own consensus, would not serve the
purpose.
It was also indicated by the Employee
Representative that the method of move up was allowed from
April through September of 1974, and I think this was based upon
obtaining the Paramedics Program, and this was by verbal agree-
ment by the Representative made to Management and apparently was
done without ratification of the general membership. Whether
this was -an understanding by the Representative and the member-
ship, I did not get from the testimony. And, under this assump-
tion, I would say that perhaps Management took the attitude that
the understanding "where possible" would be a continuing thing
as was written in the prior years. At the time the membership
ratified the Understanding, I would think that they would have
called for the removal of these two words, "where possible",.'
Now, perhaps there was a misunderstanding
in the interpretation of it, and under this I would say that
it was an error of agreement on the part of either party. I
• feel that negotiation between City Management and Employees
should always be conducted in good faith and total understanding
with authorness in the written agreement and adherence by both
parties to that end.
My recommendation would be to both parties
to accept no fault at this time, and arrange to correct the
ambiguities of Article 2.3. This can only be done by meeting in
good faith and work out a desired procedure, agreeable to both
parties, clearly spelling out the call back procedure before a
move up is implemented. I don't feel that this should be too
difficult to accomplish, especially if both parties are intent
not to have reoccurren.des of conflicts of understanding in the
future. :
At this time I would be fully against
allowing the grievance stated on the reasons I have just given.
However, I would mplo-? both parties either to sit down immedi-
ately, or perhaps when the next Meet.and Confer comes up, and
correct this item number 2.3. That is the way I feel, Mr. Mayor.
Councilman Tice: In looking at this from a little different
standpoint, looking at it from a neutral
third party, which,in essence, the Council
plays the position of - the Grievance Committee. The way the
clause was written out pretty well substantiates, in my feeling,
• that when they say "call back by the same rank" they mean call
back by the same rank. I don't understand why this wasn't brought
up in the 1973 Agreement; why nothing was done about interpreting
this thing.
If I wear my Management hat, and not a
third party hat., I probably would rule against the grievance.
But, looking at the way I interpret the wording and the way other
people look at the wording too, I find it rather hard to get any-
thing else out of that clause other than call back by the same
rank.
- 2 -
CITY COUNCIL December 23, 1974
Grievance Hearing Page Three
°I do have some concerns about the words
"where possible". I think that is the thing that more or less
bothers me. I think that has to be clarified, and I would
propose that maybe some type of a rule of 3, or something like
that be used, where it is practical. Whereas, if we call back
an', Engineer for an Engineer, we don't - or, we at least make
an attempt to call three. If we can't reach three,individuals,
then the one with the next highest rank would be called back.
You could go on indefinitely on this type of thing.
I also have another suggestion, too.
Kind of a rule of one of five which would be used for training
purposes and also apply to the rule of three that every fifth
call back would give the opportunity for somebody of a lower
rank to act in an acting position for training.
Councilman Chappell: How did you develop that 3 and 5 figure?
Councilman Tices Oh, it was just an arbitrary figure on my
part.
I can't read it any other way, so that is
my feeling on it. It is pretty well spelled out. I am just
surprised that it hasn't come up before.
Councilman Miller: In looking over Section 2.3, trying to
be as realistic as possible, it does
present itself to a little ambiguous
wording. I would encourage in the next Meet and Confer that
some of these ambiguous situations that have arisen now be
• worked out in a little more detail.
Having gone through this and listening
to the testimonies, it is one of those things ,that if you look
at it from both sides and then as a third party, I find that at
this time, personally, that the Fire Department Management,has
in its practice, has and is complying with this section.
Basically, again, I try to encourage that
the ambiguous type of wording be reworded or something to this
effect in the future because Management has responsibilities,too,
when they work within a budget, they have to do the best they can;
and, also to make sure the people are qualified. So, when you
look at qualifications, budget and management and then procedures
there shouldn't be any question.
, So,I would encourage as you are doing
now, and see if we can't get some clarifications.
Councilman Chappell: The problem here is that we have two
honorable bodies determining the loosely
written body';of'a document. I think that
we will,awithout a doubt, be working on this in our next negotia-
tion period. I don't see any other way of doing it.
I was here and listened to all of"the
. testimony, and read over a little bit of the minutes. I wish
that we had had them a little earlier because I think there were
some areas that needed to be reviewed to make a decision a week
later. But, last week I was ready to vote,if you called for the
question, to uphold our Fire Department and Staff. The fact that
the grievance would be denied. I haven't changed my opinion.
- 3 -
CITY COUNCIL
Grievance Hearing
December 23► 1974
Page. Four
We heard some testimony that bothered me
a little bit about non -qualified people were being called up to
fill the vacancies of certain ranks, which, I hope isn't true.
I hope it was more of a slip of the tongue than a fact.
In reading over the language of 2.3, I
• could see where our Chief is adhering to this portion of the
contract, so to speak, and would therefore say that I would
deny the grievance at this time.
Mayor Shearers Not to belabor the issue too much longer,
I think I hear the consensus of the Council
is to deny the grievance. That is my
position, and I will attempt to state why.
I would agree with my colleagues that
Section 2.3 is very poorly written, I think the position of both
parties to the grievance can probably be argued with the words
of the grievance and, perhaps, a good job done on both sides.
That in itself shows that the term - or the section, is not a
food section if it leaves it open for that much difference of
interpretation.
I think what it boils down to, in my mind,
is the question of intent. What was the intent? I am sure there
is no question of the intent of the Fire Fighters Association
when they signed it; from their testimony that is quite obvious.
I think from the testimony that was presented by Harold Swartz
and Leonard Eliot, what the intent was of Management when they
recommended it to Council, as did Mr. Counter, that we ratify it.
• So, we have to look at what the intent of the Council was.when
we approved it. I am going to have to disagree with Councilman
Tice somewhat. The City Council -.cannot be a neutral third party
in this because we were involved. We approved we ratified the
Memorandum of Understanding. Three of us at least, on the Council
at that time, had certain things presented to us, certain dis-
cussions. So, we cannot sit as a neutral third party because we
were involved. I think the intent of the Council in certain
things, even of management, which there is a pretty close relation-
ship, is the rejection of constant manning. I think Mr. Eliot
testified, I believe it was, that that concept was rejected.
I realize that there is some disagreement
as to what constitutes constant manning, but one of the witnesses
for the Union, Mr. Duvall, in answer to my question indicated, I
believe, that at least this interpretation by the Union was a
form of constant manning, which had been openly rejected during
the negotiating stages.
I think that the fact that the budget that
was approved did not contain sufficient funds to financially
support the interpretation of the Union is another indication of
what the intent of the Council was. This was recognized by then
Acting Chief Short in a meeting testified occurred, which,of
course,was not with the approval of the Council. I don't think
any of us knew it, I'm not sure that anyone other than Chief
• Short was aware of this meeting.
The most recent thing that, to me, shows
the intent of the Council and the intent of Management was when
we discussed the Apprentice Firemen elevation to regular Firemen
- 4 -
CITY COUNCIL
Grievance ieari�g
December 23, 1974
Page Five
•
0
i
status. At that time, I believe it was Chief Short used the
term of "floaters"in reference to the two extra men that would
be available to be utilized to avoid overtime. This was made
very clear to the Council that what the purpose - one of the
purposes of elevating the Apprentice Firemen to full Firemen
status, and that was just this very thing that we are discussing
here this evening. That Council approved that, and, I think this
adds validity to what our intent was. I am not here to argue
what those words might mean to someone else, but what our intent
was.
We first approved the Memorandum of
Understanding for 1973-74, and we then approved basically the
same wording in 74-75. There were significant differences. One
of which was the acting pay. Under the current Memorandum it
now,starts with the first shift rather than with the third shift.
That in itself is quite a major change between the two Memorandums.
Obviously, I think this item will become
a major item in the negotiations that are going to be starting in
just a very few months.
the grievance.
I will vote, if we have a motion, to deny
Councilman Tices I have looked over a number of different
decisions over the years of arbitrators
in cases similar to this. I feel that
if it went to Arbitration down there they would rule against the
City in the interpretation of this thing, this clause.
Mayor Shearer: Yes, but the point is, Councilman Tice,
we are not an Arbitration Board. We are
sitting here...
Councilman Tice: I would suggest that the Association use
the Personnel Board, possibly, the next
time,as their final appeal.
Mayor Shearers I think the Memorandum of Understanding
gives that...
Councilman Tice: You have the background of the Memorandum
of Understanding, true; I don't. What the
intent is. I'm looking at it strictly on
words. You gentlemen who have served before have that advantage
of having that background. That is all I have to say.
Mr. Wakefield: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest a motion, if it
meets with your pleasure? As I sense the
discussion, the action of the City Council
that the grievance be denied and that the City Council finds that
Section 2.3 of the 1974-75 Memorandum of Understanding entered into
between the City and the Firemens Association is ambiguous and
should be clarified in the 1975-76 Meet and Confer sessions. The
City Council also finds that Section 2.3 of the Memorandum of
Understanding, as it now exists, does not prevent the Department
from making temporary assignments of fully qualified employees
to a higher rank on an acting basis to fill the position of an
employee temporarily absent from duty.
-5-
0
CITY COUNCIL
Grievance Hearin
December 23, 1974
Page Six
Motion made by Councilman Chappell, —
seconded by Councilman Browne that the grievance be denied and
that the City Council finds that Section 2.3 'of the 1974-75
Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the City and
the Firemens Association is ambiguous and should be clarified
in the 1975-76 Meet an&,.Conferisessions. The City Council also
finds that Section 2.3 of the Memorandum of Understanding, as
it'now exists, does not prevent the Department from making
temporary assignments of fully qualified employees to a higher
rank on an acting basis to fill the position of an employee
temporarily absent from duty. Motion carried on roll call vote
as follows
AYES: Browne, Miller, Chappell, Shearer
NOES: Tice
ABSENTs None
ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Councilman Chappell,
seconded by Councilman Browne to adjourn
the meeting at 5t00 P.M. until 7:30 P.M.
December23, 1974, regular meeting of
the City Council. Motion carried.
WIE