|
<br />~ I
<br />~8 e
<br />
<br />
<br />8/23/7.1
<br />
<br />I :I
<br />'I ORDINANCES 11 I-
<br />I,
<br />
<br />if COUNCIL BILL NO, 9487 - Pertaining to Collective Bargaining procedures and processes for:1 -
<br />:: recognition, negotiation and settlement of disputes; implementing the Charter Amendment adopted 'I
<br />:i May 26, 1970, amending and making new provisions to the Eugene Code 1971 by adding a new article
<br />"
<br />i: thereto, and declaring an emergency was submi 'tted, and' no councilman present requesting that it"
<br />~! be read in full, was read 'the first tiine by council bill number only., -::-:_=-- ~ ~
<br />!I - - -- -,- -- - :
<br />I! :,
<br />"
<br />,~ A pubiic h-e~ring was held two "weeks ag't"-~n' this ordinance. It is now open for Counfil discuss'ioT). -
<br />ii and questions. -- " ' , ,.., -- ,-rr
<br />Ii - - ' - ""'" -' I
<br />i: Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr~th-atthe- bill' be' re"ad the'second time by council bill number :'
<br />!~ only with unanimous, consent of the Council 'and that enactment be considered at this time.
<br />I' -
<br />
<br />Ii Ci ty Manager said a resolution had been received August 20 from the Lane County Labor Council directe4:
<br />it to the City Council. He read the resolution. ' ,
<br />.j
<br />"
<br />Iii Mana~er ther; .outlined proposals' for charigeto clarify some questicn; raised' by Councilmen at the '
<br />! publlc heaang. "
<br />"
<br />,
<br />"
<br />ii There was discussion' of the' first two proposals, and Council had no questions in that regard.
<br />"
<br />II
<br />"
<br />;' Regarding the section dealing with final offers, Mrs. Beal felt the proposal was unduly restrictive I,
<br />il and suggested that ';'prior to January 5...." be deleted, and that "no earlier than January 2" also
<br />I: be deleted.
<br />1 ~
<br />"
<br />I; Mrs. Beal moved that the words ,"be- no earlier' than January 2...." be deleted.
<br />[,
<br />: Mr. Williams said he would second the motion because he had some questions. He asked for clarifica-
<br />:: tion of Section 5. It was his feeling that nothing would preclude negotiations from, October 1 on.
<br />i Mrs. Beal felt it would be impossible to proceed toward an arbitration agreement.
<br />Ii
<br />'I
<br />P City Manager agreed that, in order to allow discussion, there must be a period of time before the
<br />jj thirty day deadline starts.
<br />"
<br />I' '
<br />il Personnel Director said the ordinance had been worked out to be consistent with the charter amend~
<br />i~ ment, which gives the January 5 date. The earlier date was to provide for discussions earlier than
<br />I' January 5 to assure having discussions in good faith. If there was no impasse, there will be no
<br />Ii requirement for a letter of intent.
<br />1 ~
<br />I; Mrs. Beal did not believe the letter of intent would preclude earlier bargaining, and she felt this
<br />:i provision could prove troublesome.
<br />I'
<br />I:
<br />!i Mr. Williams felt the city's position was logical, and that it would be unfortunate to have the
<br />Ii first arbitration begin November 1.
<br />I
<br />I
<br />"
<br />Mr. John Paul Jones, 824 18th, Portland, felt this position was absolutely unworkable, and agreed I' ,
<br />with Mrs. Beal's motion.
<br />
<br />Vote taken on motion 'as stated. Mrs. Beql, Mrs. Campbell voted aye. Messrs. Williams, Mohr, ,..
<br />Hershner and Gribskov voted no. Motion failed.
<br />
<br />Union Shop - Councilman Mohr asked for clarification of an attorney opinion regarding legality of
<br />the union shop provision. Did this neefrto be in the ordinance, or was it actually a bargainable
<br />issue, even though the legal position is that it is ambiguous.
<br />
<br />Manager sai"d tha.t, in discussiDn with the attorney prior to the meeting, it had been clear that ·
<br />since the' charter amendment indicates terms of employment, a bargainable case may be, made for
<br />union shop to be made one of the conditi~ns of employment. He felt it could be challenged, but it
<br />does not say clearly it is in conflict with the charter amendment. Staff would like to see the right
<br />to refrainifrom joining the union spelled out in the ordinance, from the standpoint of administratbn'
<br />and operation of the city. If Counci Iffeels it should be bargainable, there is no problem. If
<br />;, Council wishes to leave it in the ordinance , it should be understood this could be challenged and
<br />\, stricken from the ordinance at some future time.
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr suggested that perhaps this section should be held open for future discussion. This'
<br />is a very difficult issue.
<br />,I
<br />Manager did not feel inclusion of this section was so controversial that it would lead to further
<br />" challenge. There are similar clauses -in man)) other ordinances and state laws.
<br />
<br />I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that, at the tope of Page 5, the comma after the word 1- --
<br />"choose" should be 'changed to a period, deleting the remaining 'words in the sentence.
<br />
<br />I Mr~ Williams explained that the move basically meant the right to join a union or not to join a
<br />:; union was, in fact a bargainable issue, which he could see no reason in law or practice to include.
<br />I' He was confident the city administration would be very ,careful in bargaining over these types of
<br />'i contracts' and that this type of language would be maintained in any contract drawn up.
<br />II
<br />Mrs. Beal agreed that it should be made very clear that the Council, in passing this ordinance, was 4Il
<br />not drawing up a labor contract, and that this did not mean the city was giving away any of its rights, ..
<br />
<br />~ 8/23/71 - 11
<br />
|