|
CORRESPONDENCE:
<br />Labor Relations
<br />AFSCME Appeal
<br />City Manager Huffaker read his memorandum regarding the Appeal of American Federation of State, County and Municipal
<br />Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 122, of the decision by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer in denying AFSCME's
<br />request for recognition as a modified unit to represent the general employees of the City, listed in "Exhibit B" of
<br />the Union's petition dated November 26, 1975.
<br />Mr. Huffaker referred to previous correspondence between his office and AFSCME, and meetings that have been held,
<br />resulting in clarification of AFSCME's proposed unit and further defining those employees who will be represented
<br />by AFSCME. Mr. Huffaker advised that the Union's present request is to exclude public safety personnel (Fire and
<br />Police), management and confidential employees.
<br />Mr. Huffaker continued the City Council, after reviewing the Appeal, may approve, modify or reverse the determination
<br />of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer, and the Council has an alternative that is not at the disposal of the
<br />Municipal Employee Relations Officer, which is the Council could allow the employees to determine the respresentation
<br />units by secret ballot.
<br />Mr. Huffaker stated the ballot measure to the employees would be as follows:
<br />Or -
<br />1. The present units, which are:
<br />a. Police Unit, comprised of all sworn personnel, in addition to the
<br />Animal Control Officer and Police Dispatchers.
<br />b. General and Fire Employees, comprised of all other personnel.
<br />2. The proposed units, which would be:
<br />a. Police Unit.
<br />b. Fire Unit, which would include all sworn personnel in the Fire
<br />Department.
<br />c. All Non -Management and Non -Confidential Employees (Units that
<br />AFSCME is proposing)
<br />d. Management and Confidential Employees Unit.
<br />Mr. Huffaker said that all employees of the City would be allowed to vote, with the exception of those within the
<br />Police Unit, because their unit is not affected.
<br />Mr. Huffaker concluded that if the Council decides to adopt this procedure, Staff would recommend the election be
<br />conducted by the California State Conciliation Service.
<br />Mr. Richard V. Sierra, International Representative of American Federation of State, County and Municipal
<br />Employees, Local 122, AFL-CIO, addressed the City Council stating that after several meetings, AFSCME and the
<br />Municipal Employee Relations Officer have agreed upon what the proper unit of representation should be.
<br />Mr. Sierra said the only point he would like to add this evening, with regard to AFSCME's petition submitted
<br />on November 26, 1975, and in conformance with Resolution No. 2996, is that the City Council respectfully
<br />consider their request that AFSCME Local 122, AFL-CIO, be granted informal recognition, in the interim period
<br />pending a hearing, for the appropriateness of the unit and certification as a formally recognized majority
<br />representative. Mr. Sierra stated that AFSCME further requests that the petition, and all of its contents, be
<br />accepted for the granting of informal recognition.
<br />Mr. Sierra referred to Resolution No. 2996, defining "Informal Recognition", as outlined in Section 3. DEFINITIONS,
<br />Subsection (Q). RECOGNIZED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS, (1) Formal Recognition, and (2) Informal Recognition, and
<br />as further outlined in Section 9. PETITION FOR RECOGNITION, Subsection (B). INFORMAL RECOGNITION - THE RIGHT
<br />TO CONSULT IN GOOD FAITH:.
<br />Mr. Sierra stated that the City Council now has the option of approving their request, in granting and recognizing
<br />AFSCME as an appropriate unit for representation, and the next step would then be in holding an election, allowing
<br />the employees to determine for themselves the question of representation.
<br />Mr. Huffaker stated he would like to clarify a point so that there will be no misunderstanding, he has proposed,
<br />or as an option, that the employees be allowed to determine the unit, and the unit only. After that, if there
<br />should be a different modification of the unit, as proposed by AFSCME, then an election would be held to
<br />determine the representation.
<br />Mr. Sierra responded that determination has to be made by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer, not the
<br />employees, and the Resolution is very clear on that. Mr. Sierra said the question of settling the representation
<br />of rights is solely and exclusively for the employees.
<br />Mr. Huffaker responded that what he is suggesting, under the City's proposed Rules the duties of the Municipal
<br />Employee Relations Officer are very clear and he does not have the option of having the election. The City
<br />Council does have this option, however, the Municipal Employee Relations Officer does not. Mr. Huffaker said
<br />that his previous suggestion was as an alternative.
<br />Mr. Sierra stated, that in that case, he is suggesting that the City Council does have that option of granting
<br />recognition this evening to AFSCME, or instructing the Municipal Employee Relations Officer to schedule and
<br />order an election.
<br />Mr. Sierra said that he would also like to further suggest that the City Council consider and approve, by
<br />Minute Action, granting AFSCME informal recognition, as provided for in the Rules, for an interim period,
<br />until such time as the Municipal Employee Relations Officer is directed by the City Council to order and hold
<br />an election.
<br />Councilman Gonzales stated this matter has been going on for over a year, and he firmly believes that the
<br />employees, themselves, should have the opportunity to determine who will represent them.
<br />CEP 21,1976
<br />
|