10/11/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the support by the police and fire unions of the proposed charter revision was conditional on the substance of the proposed ordinance. For that reason, e he said, if any substantive changes were made, all parties should be a part of the discussions. Councilman Williams was also a member of the Council subcommittee on charter re- view. lIe said the charter amendment and the proposed ordinance were brought to the Council as a package and presented to the voters with the statement that the ordinance would be adopted as soon as possible after enactment of the charter. With that commitment, he said, the Council more or less had to do that. He sug- gested that the proposed ordinance be put into operation, then if problems arose they could always be brought back to the Council for discussion rather than to renege now on the commitment made. Councilman Bradley asked if state law provided a mechanism for proceeding with collective bargaining. Personnel Director said his understanding was that the city then would be in violation of the charter. This was confirmed by the Assist- ant City Manager. Mayor Anderson commented on the question of credibility, saying a copy of the pro- posed ordinance was presented for information in his talks promoting adoption of the revised chsarter; to make substantive changes at this time would be violating the trust of the voters in passing the charter. He also shared the concern of staff and the unions in trying to develop good collective bargaining procedures before going into negotiations. He felt a decision should be made at this time rather than referring the issue back to staff - to do otherwise merely would go back to where the three unions and staff were six months ago. In addition, he said, he felt this certainly would not be the last collective bargaining document the e city would be considering; any problems arising can be worked out. He noted that two of the three unions had indicated they were ready to move ahead, and he thought tyring to get a perfect document at this time or at any time would be a never- ending process. Councilman Haws said this document was promised and should be adopted now, but he was also concerned about questions raised by AFSCME. He suggested that staff dis- cuss the issues with the union and bring to the Council a statement of the view- points of that particular union. Personnel Director offered to respond at this time, however. With regard to AFSCME position that the ordinance conflicts with its ton- stitution, staff didn't see the same conflict and would not advise deletion of language that had been law in the private sector since 1947. The understanding of case law with regard to "fair share" agreement, he said, was "a majority choos- ing to vote," not "a majority in a unit." With regard to the strike issue, Per- sonnel Director continued, negotiations between staff and the three unions covered the issue of how final procedures would be resolved. He recognized that policy decision would have to focus on policy constraints of Oregon law, and the city code was in fair conformity to state statute. There was also the question of strike-vs arbitration mechanism, he said, and that issue is now being raised at the state level where a constitutional amendment has been proposed that would re- move home rule authority. If enacted, he said, there would be a major cleanup on existing procedures. His understanding was that AFSCME statewide was support- ing that amendment. Staff position is that exercise of home rule authority is in conformity with state law. Personnel Director continued that with regard to a hearing official, staff chose to model those procedures and authorities of public e employe vs third party after state procedures - also a policy matter. The clear- est option for enforcement is with the use of a local hearings official, he said. In response to Councilman /laws with regard to "lock out," Personnel Director said that ironically "lock out" was mentioned only once in the ordinance. AFSCME re- quested additional language in that regard but staff felt the suggested change was of very little utility to the city. Lf-g~ 10/11/76 - 11