08/23/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

""'l e t,J/f 8/23/71 I Mr. Mohr felt the definition of union shop, itself, was a bargainable item. Mr. Williams defined that the employe must pay dues in'the union in order to maintain his membership and that other conditions are not part of the contract. He would recommend that the requirement be to join the union within 60 days. In answer to Mr. Hershner, Manager clarified that, if the holding of a position depended upon maintaining members in good standing, then this give s the union some authority over who can be a city employe. If membership in good standing implies anything other than paying union dues and the city has the authority to withhold his union dues and see that they are paid, there is no problem. If violating a picket line or some other action which is considered contrary to union practice res ul ts in loss of postiion in the city. If this portion is to be deleted, staff suggests the section be put back in the ordinance which would state it would be an unfair labor practice to discriminate against employes with whom membership has been denied on grounds other than paying dues. This would clarify the point that failure to pay union dues would be the only reason for losing membership. e Voted taken on motion as stated. MotiDn carried. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Williams to add a section stating that it would be an unfair labor practice to discriminate against an employe with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some grounds other than his failure to tender initiation fees or periodic dues uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or maintaining membership. I Manager clarified that there would be added to Page 4, Section (b) a new section (6). Mr. Hershner agreed with Mr. Williams point that the payment of dues is rightly the only criteria to maintaining membership in the union. Mr. Mohr was not sure that any reference to unfair labor practices should be a part of the ordinance, but that it should be in a different form to be a civil sanction against the city. Personnel Direc~or said this was a logical place for this section, with other things the union is not allowed to do. Mr. Mohr asked for clarification this was not enforced as a criminal ordinance. Personnel Director said it was not. Vote taken on motion as stated. All voted in favor except Mrs. Beal. Motion carried. Final Offers -Councilman Mohr asked how the final offer system came into being. Who objected to it and what the grounds were for objection. Personnel Director clarified that the AFCSME objected to this section ,as it obj ected to the entire ordinance. They feel it restricts the charter amendment or is more restrictive than the charter amendment and is in conflict with it. Staff sees no conflict, and the attorney's office advise there is no confli ct. Mrs. Beal asked the City Attorney whether or not this limited power of arbitrator went. beyond the I charter. In reply the City Attorney said that, in dealing with this problem of final offers, there is nothing in the charter that directly conflicts with the kind of final offer set forth in this proposed ordinance. There is a difference in terms, but they are general terms. It would actually be a policy issue. Mrs. Beal moved that the section dealing with final offers be stricken. Motion died for lack of a second. e Manager asked for a clarification of whether the items proposed earlier Tor change in wording in the ordinance were approved. Mayor said it had been the consensus of the Council at the beginning of the discussion that these were legitimate changes and they should be made, Vote taken on motion for second reading. Mrs. Beal voted no. Bill held for final reading at the next regular meeting. COUNCIL BILL NO. 9488,- Adding Section 2.776 to the Eugene Code 1971 (Temporary Municipal Judges, appointment and compensation) and declaring an, emergency was submitted, and no councilman present requesting that it be read in full was read the first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only with unanimous consent of the Council and that enactment be considered at this time. Council had instructed that the ordinance be written In such a way that the Bar Association would be requested to prepare a list from which the Municipal Judge would select temporary judges. The I Bar Association was unwilling to accept that responsibility, feeling it would require extensive investigation on their part. As an alternative, they suggested that the Municipal Judge submit to the Bar Association a list of those whom he would propose to appoint and the Bar Association would confirm or deny that list. Assistant City Attorney suggested that the Lane County Bar Association could, perhaps, put a stamp of approval on the list, in accordance with the ordinance requirement. Vote taken on motion as stated. Motion carried. e Mr. Teagu~ moved seconded ~y Mr. Mohr t!.:at__ the b~ll b~~ ?p;p,roveg and given final passage. Rollcall votl All councllmen present vOtlIlg aye the '0:e11 was' declared passed:- and numbered 16287. - 8/23/71 - 12 ...