08/09/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

""'Ill e ~~ 6 8/9/71 I Mrs. Russell Wheeler, 1310 Willow Creek Road, asked why cars were not stopped with noisy mufflers. She would like, to see the noise ordinance enforced and a time set for people toretir~,. -, :,O.C. -Be'Cker~ ~resident of Cascade Manor, said he has taken an interest in sound pollu- tion for some time. Altered cars do create excessive noise, and he felt police should enforce this law, and he hoped the new ordinance would give them some means of enforcement. Mel McDermott, 3625 Willamette, said Willamette is also a drag strip, and there are ordinances that make this excessive noise prosecutable. Mayor Anderson agreed that there are noise problems in the city, and said the Council intent is to devise an ordinance that is enforceable. The Council will discuss the ordinance further at a subsequent meeting, after perusal of the proposed changes. e H. Discussion of Collective Bargaining Ordinance Committee R~port of August 4, 1971 - Copies of the proposed ordinance and related material were previously circulated to Councilmen. ' Assistant City Manager explained the purpose of the ordinance and that it was hoped it would c@mpliment the collective bargaining charter amendment and provide a workable procedure for bargaining. . It was found by the judge in the court sui t that "questions of construction in regard to the charter amendment are to be determined by appropriate ordinances..." IAFF Local I 861 supports the ordinance with the exception of the last part of the definition of employe rights. AFSCME Local l724A opposes the ordinance, feeling that there is no evidence that the charter amendment is inadequate. They have voiced specific opposition to the employe rights definition, feeling that union security is a condi ti on of employment. The Employe Association and Police ,Benefit Association support the ordinance. Councilman Mohr asked why this was in ordinance form, rather than a resolution. It was explained that there were no c;i;rirninal penal ties and that it described the procedure process for collective bargaining. Testimony at regular meeting - City Manager explained that the Council had requested a public hearing on this ordinance at this time to allow testimony, but did not propose to take action until it had sufficient time to weigh the testimony. Mr. Frank Jackson, member of the Firefighters Local 851, stated the position of the executive board ~hat the ordinance, while not totally pleasing, is a workable piece of legislation, with the striking of one section, and that is the section which prohibi ts employe groups from negotiating a union shop. He said it w~s the opinion of the local that this was a matter for the bargaining table, and not the legislative process. Red Smith, 3095 Floral Hill Drive, said he was spokesman for Local 1724A AFSCME, and that correspondence had been circulated to the Council at the Committee meeting. I He said their position is that the ordinance is completely unnecessary because the city of Eugene has already declared itself a public employer, and all these things are covered by the PERBV The firefighters negotiated their contract with no problems at the bargaining table. Local 1724A is in complete accord with the firefighters request for union security. Mr. Smith went over objections to the ordinance section by,section, and reiterated the Local stand that an ordinance was unnecessary. e Mr. Pat Langan, chairman of the Eugene City Employes Association, said that group went along with the ordinance as written. They have not at the present time petitioned the City Council for recognition as a bargaining unit, ?ut feel they will do so in the near future. Chris Brui?, 524 East 17th, said she was a delegate to the Lane County Labor Council of the University Employes Union. She was very surprised the city was contemplating this type of ordinance and felt PERB was competent to handle these things. She questioned the necessity of drafting such legislation. In ,answer to Mrs. Beal, City Manager said it was felt the charter amendment left a great many unsaid possibilities for arriving at agreement between labor and management that need to be spelled out so that there may be orderly procedures to attempt to arrive at an agreed-upon contract prior to having to resort to compulsory arbitration, and that development of a bargaining ordinance which sets forth these I procedures and time limits will provide some preliminaries to the 30 day deadline. Councilwoman Beal felt the charter amendment was brief and to the point and that the ordinance was complicated and appeared to be ammore difficult document to understand and interpret. She asked to have the legal question answered whether or not the ordinance may restrict a charter amendment in the way that this ordinance restricts this charter amendment. The inclusion or exclusion of union security as a subject of collective ba~gaining and other matters which restrict the bargaining e process in any way do not appear to be intended by the charter amendment. 8/9/71 S 7 I ....