|
<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 />
|