HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-18-1976 - Special Meeting SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, JUNE 18, 1976
1 The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond, Indiana,
2 met in special session June 18, 1976 at the hour of 2:00 P.M. in the
3 Municipal Building in said City. Mr. Reinke presided with -Mr. Mere-
4 dith and Mr. Webb present. The following business was had, to-wit:
5
1111
6 Change Order No. 7 for the reconstruction of Williamsburg Pike was
7 s;ubmitted to the Board. The nature of the change is installation of
8 two traffic signals at Northwest "'V" Street and Industries Road with
9 spare parts for signals.
10 _
11 Mr. Webb moved acceptance of this change order, seconded by Mr. Meredith
12 and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
13
14 There being no further business, on motion duly made, seconded and
15 passed, the meeting was adjourned.
16
17 Robert L. Reinke
18 President
19
20 ATTEST: JoEllen Trimble
21 Clerk of the Board
SPECIAL MEETING OF BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY, FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1976, CONCERNING
GRIEVANCES FILED BY RICHMOND PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 1408 OF INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL-CIO.
Meeting was called to order by President, Robert L. Reinke; Those in attendance were
Board Members Reinke, Meredith, and Webb; Fire Chief Mullins, Assistant Chief Loudy,
and Battalion Chief Irvin Perkins; also present were Attorney Clyde Williams, represent-
ing Fire Fighters Union, several officers of the Union and members of the Union and Fire
Department.
_ President IIIReinke mentioned that meetings between Union and City Officials were usually
closed meetings, but that he had discussed this question with Attorney Williams of the
Union; Mr. Williams was of the opinion that the Professional Negotiation Agreement
- between the Union and the City required official action of the Board of Public Works on
the grievances filed by the Union, and that such official action could occur only at a
public meeting, and that therefore the Professional Negotiation Agreement between the
Union and the City required that these grievances be heard at a Public Meeting. Mr.
Reinke therefore stated that, in view of the opinion of Mr. Williams, the meeting was
a Public Meeting, and that the Board had notified all news media that this meeting
would occur, as is the Board's practice whenever the Board conducts a Special Meeting.
Representatives of WKBV and WHON radio, _ were present at the
meeting.
Discussion was then held on the number of grievances which were to be presented to the
Board. It was agreed that all grievances to be presented were contained in the June 7,
1976, letter from Attorney Williams to Board President Robert Reinke, which letter in-
cluded a copy of the May 5, 1976, letter of Attorney Williams to Board President Robert
Reinke; Attorney Williams also indicated some additional grievances may be presented,
and the total grievances to be discussed would approach 18. Mr. Williams further stated
the grievances were brought because Fire Chief Mullins had ignored the procedure of the
Professional negotiation agreement and refused to discuss any of the grievances. Chief
Mullins stated, in response to inquiries from the Board, that he had not processed all
the grievances in a formal manner, but was willing to discuss them; Attorney Williams
asked if the grievances would be approved, and the Chief replied no. The Union, Chief,
and Board therefore decided to proceed to step 3, hearing the grievances before the
Board, inmiediately. The Board suggested that the first grievance to be considered deal
with grievance dated May 29, 1976, concerning uniform changes. Attorney Williams re-
quested this grievance be delayed until additional witnesses become present. The Board
R granted the request of Mr. Williams, and then took grievance designated "A" in the
Williams May 5, 1976, letter.
1. City's refusal to deduct and remit dues for three persons to local as provided in
Article 5 and 6 of Professional Negotiation Agreement (designated "A" in May 5, 1976,
letter) . Discussion was held which disclosed that undisputed facts were: No dues have
been deducted and paid to the Union from the salaries of Battalion Chief Perkins, Knarzer,
and Barker, for some time; all three persons were members of the Union on April 5, 1975,
and Barker was a charter member; no deduction has been made from the, pay of any of these
three since March 24, 1976; Chief Mullins stated all three Battalion Chiefs did not want
to be members of the Union, and did not want deductions from their pay for Union dues or
service fees. The Union did not dispute the accuracy of Chief Mullins statement, but
took the position that desires of the three Battalion Chiefs in this regard were irrel-
evant; the Professional Agreement required deduction and payment to Union. Chief and
Union rested their respective cases. Discussion was held by the Board Members which
pointed out that there could be some serious legal problems concerning mandatory de-
ductions from wages and payment of dues for service charge to Union from employees who
were expressly excluded from bargaining unit, as Battalion Chiefs are; further Articles
2 and 3 of Professional Negotiation defined terms of employee, employees, fire fighters,
and expressly exclude Platoon Captains (renamed Battalion Chiefs) ; under these circum-
stances, the three Battalion Chiefs are not employees as defined in the Professional
Negotiation Agreement from whom deduction from salaries must be made with payment to Union.
IIIReinke Moved, Webb seconded, that grievance be denied; motion carried 3 - 0. Attorney
Williams took exception and stated that the matter would be pursued in Court.
The Board then moved to grievance identified as "B" on May 5, 1976 letter; However,
Attorney Williams for Union requested that Board move to Greivance "C" of May 5 letter;
request of Attorney Williams granted.
2. Refusal of Chief to process grievances timely as required by Article 10 (paragraph
"C" of May 5, 1976 letter) . Attorney Williams stated that the Chief had refused to
follow step 2 required in Article 10 of Professional Negotiation Agreement, and had
refused to meet with the Union and/or the aggrieved party or his designated representa-
tive within 5 days; further the Chief had failed to give written answer to the Loacal
concerning the grievances. The Union wanted the Chief ordered to process all grievances.
Chief Mullins admitted he had not timely processed all grievances and stated he did not
do so in part because he thought the Union would be over with the Board of Works with
great frequency and regularity had he done so. On discussion by the Board, it was
pointed out the grievance procedure commencing in Step 2, required (a) the employee
reduce the grievance to written form within 5 days after initial meeting between
employee and Lieutenant; (b) the Chief must arrange a meeting with the aggrieved
employee or his representative which meeting should be within 5 days of receipt of
grievance; (c) The chief must make a written answer to the grievance, but no time
limit is stated as to when the answer must be made; (d) if the answer of the Chief
through second stage of grievance does not resolve the same, then grievance may be
forwarded to Board of Works (no time limit stated as to when) and Board must arrange
III for meeting within eight days of receipt of grievance (this means meeting must be
arranged within 8 days, but date of meeting could be more than 8 days after receipt
of grievance) . The Board also stated its opinion that where no time limits are
specified, "reasonable time" would be implied. No one disputed interpretation of
grievance procedure as outlined by Board. Chief explained he had not voluntarily
followed this procedure. Meredith moved, seconded by Webb, that grievance be granted
and that Chief be instructed to follow grievance procedure as described in Article 10
of Agreement, and as outlined by the Board, for all future grievances; Motion carried
unanimously. Attorney Williams in behalf of Union requested that all pending grievances
be referred back to the Chief for processing, which request was denied by the Board
because the Board had already, without objection from Union, processed one grievance
previously at the meeting, further, the Union had never made such a request to refer all
pending grievances back for processing untilthe conclusion of the Board in this griev-
ance; further, grievances had been pending for some time and should be resolved.
3. City's refusal to grant "time off' for Union business as required by Article 9
(paragraph B) of May 5, 1976 letter. Union stated that Article 9 required that Fire
Chief grant time off for Fire Fighters engaged in Union business, but that Chief had
refused to grant any time off. Chief responded that Fire Department operated under a
"manpower shortage" as he had defined the term pursuant to Article 9; Chief further
stated that Fire Fighters could attend to all Union business provided they switched
working time with other employees; Chief further stated that Fire Fighters averaged
19 to 20 men on duty per shift, occasionally going to a maximum of 22. This fact was
not disputed by Union; further, Professional negotiation agreement itself set out work
_111 assignments and number of Fire Fighters required in Article 11, which requires 22 men on
companies, plus one man in communications and Battalion Chief; therefore, Chief main-
tains we have manpower shortage. Union, given opportunity to respond, asked several
questions of Chief Mullins concerning the matters which he had just outlined. Board
President Reinke commented that it appeared problem was simply that previous adminis-
tration signed an agreement which purported to have 24 men on duty at all times, and
granted Fire Fighters lower working hours, plus time off, which in effect meant there
would be less than those 24 men on at all times. The Board inquired as to whether any
representative of Fire Fighters attended Council at the adoption of the Budget for 1976;
Union responded they did not go as a Union, and felt no obligation to go; in response
to Board inquiry, Union representatives stated that they had sent representatives to
Council Meetings on other issues. Meredith moved, and Webb seconded that grievance
be denied; motion carried.
4. Failure to honor manpower for each station and requiring Fire Fighters to report
to Station one - see article 11 - (paragraph "D' of May 5, 1976 letter) . Agreed facts
are that each shift has less men reporting than are required to fulfill the manpower
requirements of Article 11; Chief has therefore"bunched" men at Pumper Company #1,
which responds to most fires. Union wanted manpower requirements of Article 11 met.
Chief stated again there was not enough manpower, and no money budgeted to provide for
the manpower; transfers of funds made after January 1, 1976 to employ two additional
firemen still did not meet manpower requirements; Union responded that it was Council's
obligation to pass appropriations to meet manpower requirements, and further that when
Council did appropriate funds for two additional men, they were added to Fire Prevention
rather than placed on lines; Chief stated that Fire Prevention was essential, and that
11/ Fire Department had recieved many concerned inquiries from hospitals, nursing homes, and
others concerning reduction of Fire Prevention personnel; Chief thought Fire Prevention
personnel should be maintained, as even abolishing Fire Prevention Bureau would not pro-
vide sufficient manpower to meet the requirements of the Agreement. Chief stated, in
response to Union's inquiry, that he would propose a budget to Council which met all re-
quirements of the Professional Negotiation Agreement. On motion by Webb, seconded by
Meredith, and unanimously carried, grievance was denied.
5. City's refusal to pay"holiday pay" and refusal to compute "holiday pay" on all in-
come - Article 12 (see paragraph "E" 5/5/76 letter) . Agreed facts are that City does
not pay "holiday pay" for Fire Fighters who do not work on holidays because their code
days exclude them from holiday work, or because they are sick. Union claims that em-
ployees are "scheduled" to work even their code day falls on a holiday or they are sick,
under either of which circumstance employees do not work. Chief responds that if code
day falls on holiday, or if employee does not work because of illness, he is not "sched-
-2- . U r ;�
i1/7.
uled" and therefore not entitled to holiday pay. Union maintained on question of
computing "holiday pay" that holiday pay should be computed on all income received
by Fire Fighter§, including longevity pay. Chief responded that pay should be com-
puted on base pay, excluding longevity pay, which is separately identified in Adden-
dum #1 of the Professional Negotiation Agreement. On motion by Meredith, seconded
by Webb, and unanimously carried, the grievance was denied because employees who are
off on sickness or code days are not scheduled to work and holiday should not include
longevity pay.
At this time discussion was held between Mr. Williams of Union and Board President
Reinke. Reinke explained that with each grievance the Union had the right to go first,
followed by the Chief, and Union last; if Union wanted otherwise, the Chief could go
first and last, with Union second. Once Union and Chief were finished, Board would
then proceed to decide grievance, and when Board was in decision making process, it
was then too late for either Chief or Union to attempt further introduction of evidence
or new argument; the Board further explained it reserved the right to ask questions
to determine facts at any time, but as a matter of policy would delay such determination
usually until both Union and Chief had concluded. Mr. Williams responded that Board was
Kangaroo Court and had predetermined all issues and had not conducted meeting fairly.
Further discussion was held with Board members. Attorney Williams requested, in behalf
of Union, that short recess be granted. Board recessed for five minutes at around 11:05
A.M. Board reconvened approximately 11:15 A.M. , and announced its willingness to continue
until all grievances were resolved, or until approximately 2:00 P.M. , whichever first
occurred. Union and Chief agreed to continue.
6. Transferring Fire Fighters from Stations without prior notice - Article 13 (see
paragraph "F", May 5, 1976 letter) . Union had no comment. Chief explained these were
temporary moves to fill vacancies and were necessary because of Manpower shortage.
Union did not dispute Chief's ascertion, and Union had no further continent. On motion
by Meredith, seconded by Webb, and unanimously carried, grievance was denied.
7. Refusal to provide locker locks for personnel - Article 22, and snooping and illegal
searches (paragraph "G" May 5, 1976 letter) . Union had no comment. In response to in-
quiry by Board Member Meredith, Attorney Williams stated written grievance would speak
for itself. Chief responded that as far as he knew all fire fighting personnel had locks
111 for lockers, and there was no illegal search or snooping being conducted. Board Presi-
dent inquired generally as to whether anyone knew a fire fighter personnel who did not
have locks for lockers. No one responded. Union was then asked to respond and Union
stated it had no comment. Board president stated that Board could only act upon evidence
that they heard and what was presented to them. Union made no further conuuent. On motion
by Webb, seconded by Meredith, and unanimously carried, grievance denied.
8. Refusal to fill positions on bidding basis - Article 30 (paragraph "H" of May 5, 1976
letter) . Union stated it had no comment. Chief stated he met with Union Board and per
his agreement with the Union had filled all vacancies based on seniority; however Chief,
with Union consent, can't fill vacancies until vacations are over because vacation sched-
ule already exists, and transferring men from one position to another could create great
shortage of men on one shift as opposed to others, and Union had agreed to this. Board
noted that no one objected to posting or mailing of notices, and no complaints was made
about procedure; only complaint was in written grievance about failing to fulfill posi-
tion, and that agreement did not set time limits as to when positions must be filled.
Union stated it had no comment. On motion by Meredith, seconded by Webb, and unanimously
carried, grievance was denied.
9. Leaving positions open after bids are received - Article 30 (see paragraph "I" of
May 5, 1976 letter) . Parties agreed that the facts were the same as discussed in previous
grievance, and grievance was denied on same basis by motion of Meredith, seconded by Webb,
and unanimously carried.
10. New uniforms to be purchased by firefighters - Article 24 (written grievance accomp-
anying June 7, 1976 letter) , Union stated it had no comment. Chief explained he had
clothing committee selected, one man from each trick, and they made suggestions; Chief
III followed suggestions and feels that $400 per year clothing allowance is not a financial
burden on the men, particularly this month when they will receive three pay checks;
clothing committee had unanimously suggested summer clothing which Chief approved on
their recommendations. Mr. Meredith pointed out that existing rules and regulations
provided for this procedure. President Reinke inquired of Attorney Williams if
Williams knew how clothing committee was selected or if there was dispute concerning
selection. Attorney William stated "No comment". Union further stated it had no com-
ment concerning grievance at all. On motion by Meredith, seconded by Webb, and unanim-
ously carried, grievance denied.
11. Grievance numbered one - signed by Duane Greene, dated March 12, 1976, stating
that Fire truck inspected location outside of its district in violation of Article 11.
Union had no comment. Chief stated inspection had occurred outside of company's district
and situation had been corrected. Union had no comment. On motion made, seconded, and
carried, grievance was dismissed.
12. Grievance numbered two by Duane Greene, signed March 12, 1976, claiming fire fighters
were given no extra duties on Fridays as truck and equipment maintenance day, and companies
were now inspecting on Fridays, in violation of Article 24, prevailing rights. Union had
no comment. Chief stated he knew of no prior prevailing rights concerning no inspections
on truck days; companies had not previously inspected, but under terms of Professional
111 Negotiations agreement were to make inspections, which inspections started this year along
about March, when weather permitted. Since companies had not been inspecting before, there
was no prevailing right in this regard according to Chief. Union had no comment. Board
stated that based on evidence it had heard, it found there was no prevailing rights.con-
cerning inspections on Fridays or truck days. On motion by Meredith, seconded by Webb,
and unanimously carried, grievance was denied.
13. Grievance of Dave A. Harbin, March 29, 1976, concerning purchase of dress uniforms
in violation of Article seven and Article 24, prevailing rights. Union had no comment.
Dave Harbin explained this was his grievance, and he wanted to talk. William Knott, Jr. ,
explained he had filed additional grievance concerning essentially same matters. Discus-
sion by Harbin, Knott, and Fire Chief and others, established as undisputed facts:
Knott and Harbin were two firemen laid off in Minute Man program; prior to their layoff
they had finished their one year probationary period and were to receive a dress uniform;
Both Knott and Harbin were told at that time that uniform had been ordered, and would be
purchased for them by City without cost to them; both men were laid off in Minute Man
program before they received dress uniforms; when recalled to fire department both fire-
men were told that dress uniform would be paid for by City by then existing Chief; state-
ment was repeated by next Chief. Discussion was then held concerning a State Law which
may or may not require the City to provide all the initial clothing, and whether dress
uniform is considered within initial clothing. Some firemen expressed the thought that
dress uniform should be eliminated, while others wanted to continue them; Chief explained
that no dress uniform is provided until fireman has one year probationary period on,
because if the fireman doesn't make it then City is out the cost of dress uniform. Fire-
man Knott inquired why he couldn't get his dress uniform from the Chief's office, and
III how he happened to have two uniforms there; Assistant Chief explained that pants to one
uniform were missing, and there apparently been a mix-up in ordering,which resulted in
two uniforms being ordered; Assistant Chief Loudy agreed to provideCity Attorney with
copy of State Law concerning uniforms. Meredith moved that both Knott and Harbin griev-
ances be allowed; motion seconded by Webb and unanimously carried.
Mr. Williams asked that the minutes show Secretary of Board of Works was absent from
meeting.
Meeting adjourned.
,,,,,8_2-6--y-----/_e 44/",---e- e
G'�
-4-