Loading...
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