HomeMy Public PortalAbout045-1989- ADOPTING A PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND RICHMOND PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERSORDINANCE NO. 45-1989
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHMOND AND RICHMOND PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS, INC.,
LOCAL #1408 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
AFL-CIO, AND PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS' UNION OF INDIANA WHICH
AGREEMENT WAS EFFECTIVE THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 1988 AND
REMAINED IN FULL FORCE AN➢ EFFECT UNTIL THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER,
1988.
WHEREAS, The members of the fire department of the City of
Richmond, Indiana, and Richmond Professional
Firefighters, Inc., Local #1408 of the International
Association of Firefighters AFL-CIO and the City of
Richmond entered into a professional negotiation
agreement, in the interest of collective bargaining
harmony, which agreement expired December 31, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the parties to said agreement have not agreed as to the
terms and conditions of a new agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richmond is desirous of
continuing the harmony between the City of Richmond and
the Richmond Professional Firefighters, Inc., Local
#1408 and its members;
NOW THEREFORE, the City of Richmond through its City Council, to
preserve the harmony between the City of Richmond and the
Professional Firefighters, Inc., Local #1408 of the International
Association of Firefighters AFL-CIO do hereby adopt said
professional negotiation agreement, in ordinance form, as if it
were originally passed by said City Council.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of
Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana,
That the professional negotiation agreement between the
City of Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana, and the
Richmond Professional Firefighters, Inc., Local #1408 of
the International Association of Firefighters AFL-CIO,
which agreement expired by its terms on December 31,
1988, be adopted in its entirety and a new section be
added thereto.
That said professional negotiation agreement as
referred to above and adopted by this council shall
remain in full force and effect until the parties
thereto reach a new negotiation agreement.
That said professional negotiation agreement executed
between the City of Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana, and
the Richmond Professional Firefighters, Local #1408 of
the International Association of Firefighters AFL-CIO is
attached hereto and made part of this ordinance as if it
were originally adopted by said Common Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of
Richmond, Indiana this/ day of 1989.
President of Colnm6n Council
ATTEST:ZngAt�f=nml
k
City ler
PRESENTED by me to the Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana,
this day of 1989.
City C erk
.APPROVED by me, Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana
this day of 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
VETO FORM
ORDINANCE NO. 45-1989
This Ordinance disapproved and vetoed by me, Frank H. Waltermaf'nn, Mayor of the City of Richmond,
Indiana, on the _& A day of July,1989, at the hourof /2tDa /4 Aa O`cbck .M.
0/r9n-0511411 /
ATTEST:
Mary Me chant ouse, City Clerk
This Ordinance was returned by me to the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana on the
day of 1989.
This Ordinance was reconsidered by the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana on the %
day of July, 1989.
President of Common Council
The vote of the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana was 1, to 3 in favor of
opp&a4ier� overriding the veto.
President of Common Council
ATTEST: ,
City Clerk
RUCTiELSHAUS, ROLAND, HASBROOK & O'CONNOR
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOHN C. RUCKELSHAUS
PAUL G. ROLAND
WILLIAM A- HASBROOK
JOHN F. KAUTLMAN
DAVID T. HAS5ROOK
RE: Contract Ordinance
SUITE 1100
129 EAST MARKET STREET
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46204
(317) 634-4356
June 29, 1989 ,
Dear Honorable Councilmen and Councilwomen:
JOHN C-.RUCKELSHALIS (1973-1946)
JOHN K. RUCKELSHAUS (1900.1962)
ARCH N. BOSEITT (I895-1976)
oFGOUNSEL
JOHN C O'CONNOR
As general counsel for the Indiana State Professional
Firefighters Union, I was approached by the Richmond Firefighters
Local #1408, to review the contract between the local representing
the firefighters of the City of Richmond and found that by the
terms of said agreement had expired on December 31, 1988.
I was asked by the Richmond Firefighters Local #1408 whether
it was legal for the City Council of Richmond to, by ordinance,
adopt the terms and conditions of the contract and extend the term
thereof.
Based upon my research, I advised the Richmond Firefighters
Local #1408 that it would be legal and therefore prepared the
ordinance extending same which is before your body for final vote.
It is my understanding that the City of Richmond, through its
city attorney, is raising several legal objections to -your passing
this ordinance. In my judgment, and my experience, the arguments
advanced by the city do not have sound legal standing. You, as a
council, are not entering into new negotiations with the Richmond
Firefighters Local #1408 but are only,: by passing this ordinance,
adopting an agreement heretofore agreed upon between the
Firefighters Local and the City of Richmond.
As you are aware, the Mayor does not have any authority over
the monetary terms and conditions of an agreement between
firefighters and police officers as that is specifically the
prerogative of the city council. By adopting this ordinance you
will in no way usurp the Mayor's authority under I.C. 36-4-5-3.
June 29, 1989
Page 2
Trusting this will aid you in your final deliberations on the
above contract ordinance, I remain
Fraternally yours,
RUCKELS-HAUS, ROLAND, HASBROOK
& O'CONNOR
o n C. Ruckelshaus
General Counsel
Professional Firefighters
Union of Indiana
JCR/tlh
A Proposed ordinance to Adopt and Extend the 1988
Professional Negotiation Agreement Between the
City of Richmond and Richmond Professional
Firefighters, Inc., Local #1408 of the
International Association of Firefighters AFL-CIO,
_and Professional Firefighters' Union of Indiana _
synopsis
This ordinance would purport to reinstate in full force and
effect the 1988 negotiation agreement between Richmond and the
Richmond Firefighters' Unions until such time as the parties
reach a new negotiation agreement.
Concerns;
The Common Council is charged with the responsibility for
fixing the Annual compensation for all members of the police
And fire departments. Fort Wayne Patrolman's San. Assn, Inc.
v. City of Fort Wayne, 411 N.E.2d 1295, 1301-02 (Ind. App.
1980), reh. den., 411 N.E.2d 630, 631-32. In this respect,
Indiana Code 36-8-3-3(d) provides:
The annual compensation of all members of the police
and fire departments and other appointees shall be
fixed by ordinance of the legislative body before
August 2 of each year for the ensuing budget year,
The ordinance may grade the members of the
departments and regulate their pay by rank as well
as by length of service. If the legislative body
fails to adopt an ordinance fixing the compensation
of members of the police or fire department, the
safety board may fix their compensation, subject to
change by ordinance.
While the Common Council has the authority to establish the.
annual compensation for members of the police and fire'
departments, the Common Council does not have authority'over
the police and fire departments regarding other matters, or the
authority to contract on behalf of Richmond. Accordingly, the
Common Council is attempting to overstep its authority in two
regards.
First, matters relating to the administration of the police
and fire departments (aside from annual compensation) are the
responsibility of the safety board, See Z.C. 36-8-3-2, -3, -4,
.4.1. (only in the event that the Common Council has
established, by local ordinance, a civil service commission to
oversee the police force or the fire department, would the
safety board not exercise the responsibilities and duties set
forth in I.C. 36-8-3-3, -4, and -4.1.) Assuming that the
negotiation agreement between Richmond and the Firefighters'
Unions includes issues other than annual compensation, the
Common Council lacks authority to reach agreement on such
issues. The Common Council cannot, by ordinance, supplant the
authority placed in the safety board by the Indiana General
Assembly.
Second, the proposed ordinance is contrary to Indiana law in
that the Common Council is attempting to exercise the authority
to contract on behalf of the city by adopting and extending the
negotiation agreement. The authority of the mayor, including
the right to contract on behalf of the city, is set forth in
I.C. 36-4-5-3 which provides:
I
Powers and duties. --The executive shall:
(1) Enforce the ordinances of the city and the
statutes of the state:
(2) Provide a statement of the finances and
general condition of the city to the city
legislative body at least once a year;
(3) Provide any information regarding city
affairs that the legislative body requests;
(4) Recommend, in writing, to the legislative
body actions that he considers proper;
-2-
(5) Call special meetings of the legislative
body when necessary;
(6) Supervise subordinate officers;
(7) Insure efficient government of the city;
(8) Fill vacancies in city offices when
required by I.C. 3-2-10 [3-2-10-1 - 3-2-10-91;
(9) Sign all bonds, deeds, and contracts of
the city and all licenses issued by the city; and
(10) Approve or veto ordinances, orders, and
resolutions of the legislative body under
I.C. 36-4-6-15,
The Common Council's proposed ordinance is in direct violation
of the requirement that the mayor contract on behalf of the
city. Any such extension of the negotiation agreement by
ordinance without an extension of the agreement by the mayor
would be void and unenforceable as a matter of law.
Compromise:
The Common Council may exercise its statutory authority to
provide for annual compensation during the negotiation process.
However, any further action by the Common Council will infringe
upon the statutorily imposed authorities of the mayor and the
safety board.
II.
Proposed Ordinance No. 31, 1989 to Provide For Public
Employee Collective Bargaining and to Provide For
Knd nlf_Fact-findin in the, Event_A.jZreement Is Not Reached
Synonsis•
The proposed ordinance provides that "corporate authorities"
must bargain as to wages, salaries, hours, and working
conditions with representatives of an "organized employees
group" beginning the first day of May.
-3-
i
1 \ -
1
In the event that corporate authorities and the representative
of an organized employees group are unable to reach an
agreement within sixty (60) days from the date of first
meeting, any and all unresolved issues shall, upon request of
either party, be submitted to a fact-finding panel.
The fact-finding panel is a panel of five (5) persons, two (2)
selected by the corporate authorities, two (2) selected by the
representative for the organized employees group, and a fifth
(5th) member to be a professional arbitrator provided by the
American Arbitration Association and to be selected by a
majority vote of the four (4) other panel members. The
proposed ordinance provides a strict time schedule for
formation of the panel and the public hearings to be held by
the panel. The proposed ordinance provides a limited number of
factors which the panel is to consider in resolving disputes
between the corporate authorities and the representative for
the organized employees group.
Following public hearing, the facts, evidence, and
recommendations derived by the panel shall become binding and
shall form a part of the salary ordinance passed by a majority
vote of the Common Council. °•+
Concerns'
1. Practical Concerns.
(a) The Indiana General Assembly has, for several years,
considered several bills providing for public
employee collective bargaining. This type of
legislation has been given serious consideration by
the General Assembly and interim study groups and
the delay in passing such a bill reflects the
complicated nature of the issues raised in public
employee collective bargaining. Because the Indiana
General Assembly continues to explore these issues
and given the fact that we might expect public
employee collective bargaining legislation within
the next few years, any action by the City of
Richmond at this time would be premature.
(b) The proposed ordinance could result in the city
being required to simultaneously negotiate with and
-4-
conduct binding fact-finding with all the
departments in the city. The fiscal impact on the
city could be severe and could cause budgetary
problems __
l
(c) There is often a delay of several months in
obtaining an arbitrator from the American
Arbitration Association. The proposed ordinance
provides strict deadlines which do not permit such
delays.
2. Recognition of a Bargaining Agent. There are several
problems created by the definition of an "organized
employees group" and determining the bargaining agent for
such a group. For example,
(a) What criteria will be used to distinguish between
the employees of a particular department and the
supervisory personnel of that department who must be
excluded from the bargaining unit? This question is
particularly important in the case of the fire and
police departments where the efficient and effective
operation of the chain of command is important to
the public health and safety,
(b) Who is a "regular' employee of a department?
(a) What is the procedure for resolving the dispute if
two (2) bargaining agents win a majority of support?
(d) what are the voting and posting procedures in the
event of an election?
(a) There is no provision for judicial review of
representation questio s. n ndiana Educat
School Corporation, 365 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 1977), the
Supreme Court struck down Public Law 254, Acts of
1975, which provided for collective bargaining
between public employees and their governmental
employers for failure to permit judicial review for
representation issues.
-5-
3. Binding Fact-finding. While the Indiana Ceneral Assembly
can, and perhaps will, provide for public employee
collective bargaining through statewide legislation, such
an effort by the Richmond Common Council will be unlawful
in several respects.
(a) The proposed ordinance may represent an unlawful
delegation of the Common Council's authority to
establish the annual compensation for the police and
fire departments. By unconditionally delegating
such responsibility to the fact-finding panel,
comprised of non -elected persons who are not
responsive to the citizens of Richmond, the Common
Council will have failed to exercise its statutory
mandate to establish annual compensation.
(b) The proposed ordinance represents an effort to usurp
the authority of the mayor under I.C. 36-4-7-3 to
fix the compensation of each appointive officer,
deputy, and other employees of the city (fire and
police employees excluded). The Common Council has
no authority to fix such compensation and may only
reduce compensation fixed by the mayor. Xoreover,
the Common Council has no authority to transfer the
mayor's authority to a non -elected fact-finding
panel in contravention of T.C. 36-4-7-3.
(c) The proposed ordinance represents an effort to usurp
the authority of the safety board over the police
and fire departments as to matters other than annual
compensation,
(d) The proposed ordinance represents an effort to usurp
the authority of the mayor to contract on behalf of
the city by allowing the fact-finding panel to
obligate the city to collective bargaining
agreements.
(a) The proposed ordinance provides inadequately
detailed criteria to the panel to determine matters
such as wages, hours, and working conditions.
f ,
-g- `� �'
compromise
The proposed ordinance presents the potential for serious
legal, political, and economic problems created by the lack of
discussion and debate afforded the ordinance. In addition to
economic concerns, the ordinance may cause costly litigation
regarding (1) recognition of a bargaining unit, (2) the
lawfulness of binding fact-finding, (3) usurping of the
authority of the mayor and safety board, and (4) the problems
caused by coordinating this ordinance with the efforts of the
Indiana General Assembly. This proposed ordinance should be
tabled and studied.
Any effort to implement public employee collective bargaining
must be made at a state level in order to avoid contradicting
and usurping the various authorities placed upon the mayor and
the safety board by the Indiana General Assembly.
12766
-7-
Mr. Howard J. Elstro
939 South loth Street
Richmond, IN 47374
To Whom it may concern:
June 15, 1989
I feel it is in the best interest of both the City and the
Firefighters to renew the terms and conditions contained in the
1988 negotiated agreement until such time a new agreement can be
reached.
A
Howard J. Elstro