10/11/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~--_.- - whether public employes should have the right to strike. AFSCME took the position that they did not want the right to strike, as provided for in the proposed ordinance; rather, they preferred that impasse disputes be offered for final binding arbitra- . tion. If they were forced to accept the "right to strike" provision, he said, there would be less incentive for the city to submit reasonable offers. He read - from the prepared statement requesting a change that would require final offers arbitration so that AFSCME would be treated the same as the police and fire unions. Mr. Leighty asked that the ordinance be sent back to staff for revision in consulta- tion with affected unions. He added that there was no emergency since the old ordinance would be in effect while the new one was being prepared and labor negotia- tions could proceed as scheduled. Randy Wight, president of the Eugene Police Patrolmen's Association, read a prepared statement in support of the proposed ordinance. He asked the Council, if it did not enact the new ordinance, to remand it back to staff and unions to mutually resolve the differences, saying that if the ordinance was altered to accommodate one "party," the "balance" can be destroyed. Frank Jackson, speaking for the Firefighters, in general agreed with the Patrol- men's Association. He supported AFSCME's right to express any legitimate concerns they had and didn't object to the Council's making changes; however, he said if changes were made which would require substantial negotiation, the ordinance should be sent back for negotiation between staff and all three unions. He said the Firefighters would ohject to any changes that would alter the intent since they had already agreed to terms of the one proposed here. Clark Cox, Jr., 1085 Patterson Street #9, supported AFSCME position and urged ap- provla of their recommendation to reinstate the final offers arbitration provision rather than the right-to-strike provision. e - Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Councilman Haws asked for clarification of the time element and the issue of hav- II-A-3 ing different ordinances for each union. Personnel Director explained the time element involved the revised charter provision adopted and now effective but with no ordinance for its implementation. He thought trying to update the old charter ordinance provisions would be much more of a problem than dealing with issues under a new ordinance, specifically in terms of conflict with current charter pro- visions. With regard to separate ordinances, he said the more prevalent practice was to go to final offers in the public safety sector - police and fire. Councilman Bradley asked what the city "would fall back on" if no ordinance was enacted. Personnel Director answered that it was uncertain, and that was one reason why they felt the ordinance should be adopted to permit police and fire negotiations to proceed fairly promptly. He said that under home rule, the city has the authority to enact collective bargaining procedures, but that doesn't automatically mean state law takes over if there are no loc~l procedures adopted. With b~rgaining talks coming up, he said, the question of bargaining agents and units would be questionable without the implementing ordinance. Councilwoman Beal suggested following the course recommended by the unions - to send the ordinance back to staff and the three unions for resolution of the dif- ferences. She thought too that if there was substantive change, the Council sub- committ~e that reviewed charter provisions with respect to collective bargaining e should sit in on the discussions. ~ Councilman Murray said he thought the changes proposed by AFSCME were substantive and merited serious attention. He said his impression as a member of the Council subcommittee reviewing charter revisions with regard to collective bargaining was 10/11/76 - 10 Lt%5