Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ~98 <br /> e <br /> lQ/~Qf~~l_____._ __ __ _ - - ~ - .~-- - --- - ---~ - - . - --"--"- . - ~- - . -- - -.-- - -- _.~ - - ,- -.- - --~--- <br /> --_.~ - - <br /> ,Council Chamber I <br /> Eugene, Oregon ' <br /> October 30, 1967 <br /> " ". , , - - , - <br /> Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of. the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from.the'meeting <br /> held October 23, 1967 - was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on October 30, 1967 in the Council Chamber <br /> by His Honor Mayor Edwin.E. Cone with the following councilmen present: Dr. Purdy, Mrs. Lauris, <br /> Messrs, McNutt and Anderson, Mrs. Hayward, and Messrs. McDonald and Wingard. - Councilman Lassen was' <br /> absent. <br /> .... , <br /> 1 Collective Bargaining - The City Manager said some concern was expressed by non-union <br /> City employ~s with regard to the requests from AFSCME Local 1724 and Fire Fighters <br /> Local 851 for collective bargaining rights. He said the unions are not requesting re- <br /> ..' ,. presentation"of all 'City employes..They request: formal recognition and the right to <br /> represent only the Fire Department employes and Public Works maintenance division employes, <br /> a total of about 175-200 of which some"145-l50 are now.union members.. The Manager also <br /> stated that the administration does not recommend bargaining with an employes. association It <br /> tn place .of .the unions in the. sense that any continued communication with employe groups <br /> would 'lead toa formal signed.contracit:- Also, .that'if.the Council decides to barg~in col- <br /> lectively with employes, it will be necessary'to establish bargaining units and have re- <br /> presentation elections in those units. .He said, relative to Local l724.s statement that <br /> State law "requires" governmental agencies to bargain collectively with public employes, <br /> that.the intent of the law was to make bargaining permissive on the part of cities; <br /> .- I <br /> Letters were presented from Mrs. Myrl Garnett, 708 Horizon Road, opposing bargaining <br /> rights for City employes, and from the Information and: Education.Committee of the Lane <br /> County Democratic Party supporting the unions' request. A letter also was presented from <br /> Bernard L. Straight, chairman of the City employes committee, asking that non-union em- <br /> ployes be given the opportunity'to select and/or reject their. own'repre~entation. . . <br /> . ., <br /> Proponents of collective bargaining entering into the discussion were Frank Jackson, vice <br /> president, John. Jensen, 'president, and"John McMahon, member, of Fire Fighters'Local 851; <br /> Harry E . Williams ; 'vice president of Internat ional' Fire: Fighters Associat ion; ~Jlerry Dodd, <br /> executive director of Oregon Public Employes Council 75; Robert Ferrar and Fred Mohr, <br /> representatives, Myron Boss, president, and Richard.Beck,member, of ,Local 1724 AFSCME; <br /> Bill Dwyer, Ray Erickson, and Fred Callahan of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar- <br /> tenders Local 643; Patrick Flynn and Lyle Swetland~ Lane County Labor Council; ,Herbert <br /> Titus~ professor, University of. Oregon; and Jack Craig, secretary of Information and Educa- <br /> tion:Committee of,Lane County Democratic Party. <br /> Opponenets speaking were Oral Robbins,'sewage treatment plant employe, and D. C. Branstitre, <br /> airport employe. <br /> Discussion centered on questions asked by Council. members and conclusions re~ched as to <br /> effect formal.recognition would have on the City.s civil service system (very little, if <br /> any at all), whether the unions recognized would represent all crafts or if each. craft <br /> would have separate representation (one union would represent all crafts), who would con- <br /> duct a representation election (procedure would be set up by Council), will Council have I <br /> final authority in collective bargaining (the unions would hope the Council would delegate <br /> authority but any agreement would have to be ratified by Council since by law the Council <br /> cannot delegate any of its authority) . <br /> Councilman Anderson questioned whether the Council itself has the authority to determine <br /> if the City should bargain collectively with its employes without a clearer definition of <br /> its authority from the State or from the people. Mrs. Hayward pointed out that a policy <br /> statement that public management should recognize collective bargaining on employe matters e <br /> was adopted at the National League of Cities meeting at which Council members voted with- <br /> out a clearer'definition of authority ffom the people. <br /> Mayor Cone expressed the opinion that bargaining collectively with City employes would be <br /> tantamount to abrogating a portion of the Council.s responsibility, that Council members <br /> are elected by the people to represent them and make decisions in situations of this <br /> nature, and that he feels collective bargaining would create more strife with city em- <br /> ployes than would be the case without it. He urged the Council to uphold the City Manager <br /> in his recommendation against formal union recognition and collective bargaining. <br /> Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to further consider the 13 questions on page 8 of the <br /> City Manager's report dated September 1, 1967 which would guide the Council in making a decision for <br /> recognition. <br /> In explaining the intent of his motion, Mr. Wingard said it would uphold the Manager's <br /> recommendation that, if the Council wishes to proceed toward recognition and collective I <br /> bargaining, no final action be taken until the Manager presents, and the Council considers, <br /> the answers to the questions listed in his report. <br /> Mrs. Hayward suggested a committee be set up representing the administration and the em- <br /> ployes to co-operate on getting the answers. <br /> e <br /> l 10/30/67 - 1 <br />