Loading...
Item O1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: July 18, 2012 (Key West) Bulk Item: Yes , No X * Time Certain: 9:30 a.m. Division: County Attorney Department: County Attorney Staff Contact Person: Cynthia L. Hall x 3174 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Public hearing conducted pursuant to § 447.403, Florida Statutes, to resolve impasse with IAFF Local 3909 (firefighters). ITEM BACKGROUND: The current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with IAFF Local 3909 expired on September 30, 2011. The management team representing Monroe County declared an impasse as to 16 clauses in August 2011 using the procedures set forth in Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. An impasse hearing was held in front of a Special Magistrate appointed by the Florida Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC) on February 22, 2012. Both sides submitted closing briefs after the hearing. On April 9, 2012, the Special Magistrate issued a set of recommendations. Under Section 447.403(4)(c), where either party rejects some or all of the recommendations, the BOCC shall conduct a public hearing at which the parties shall be required to explain their positions with respect to the rejected recommendations. F.S. 447.403(4)(d) states: "Thereafter, the legislative body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees invoiced, to resolve all disputed impasse issues; ...." Attached is a copy of the following documents, previously sent to you also on May 10, 2012: County Administrator's recommendations for resolving dispute (Exh. A.); Special Magistrate's recommendations (Exh. B); County's response to Special Magistrate (Exh. C); Union's response to Special Magistrate (Exh. D). Further documentation will be distributed to you both by management and by the union in advance of the hearing. Presentations will be as follows: 1. County presentation (20 minutes) 2. IAFF presentation (20 minutes) 3. Rebuttals (5 minutes each) BOCC Discussion/Vote During the time period between the impasse hearing and when the BOCC meets to hear and resolve the impasse, neither side is allowed to engage in ex parte communication with the Commissioners. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: None. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: TOTAL COST $ INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No APPROVED BY: County Atty DOCUMENTATION: Included _ DISPOSITION: Revised 7/09 AMOUNT PER MONTH Year OMB/Purchasing Risk Management Not Required AGENDA ITEM # C UNTY SO�MONROE KEY WESTLORIDA 33040 (305) 2944641 Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Office of the County Administrator The Historic Gato Cigar Factory 1100 Simonton Street, Suite 205 Key West, FL 33040 (305) 292-4441—Phone (305) 2924544 — Fax 40 May 10, 2012 Dear Commissioners, Re: Impasse with IAFF Local 3909 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor David Rice, District 4 Mayor Pro Tem 10m Wigington, District 1 Heather Carruthers, District 3 George Neugent, District 2 Sylvia I Murphy, District 5 As you know, Monroe County and its firefighters have been at impasse since last August 2011. More specifically, out of all of the paragraphs in the collective bargaining agreement, we were able to reach tentative agreement on the vast majority, but reached an impasse as to a total of sixteen (16) paragraphs. Using the process laid out in the Florida Statutes, we held a hearing in front of a special magistrate appointed by the Florida Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC). Under the Florida Statutes, the special magistrate issues recommendations for the resolution of unresolved issues. The parties then indicate whether they are in agreement with those recommendations, or not. In this particular case, out of sixteen paragraphs in the CBA that went to the special magistrate, the parties agree with twelve (12) of his recommendations, but differ on the remaining four (4) paragraphs. Therefore, as required by Section 447.403(4), Florida Statutes, I am forwarding to you (a) the recommendations of the special magistrate, (b) the position of the County management team regarding those recommendations, and (c) the position of the Union. I adopt the County's position as my recommendation. The only four paragraphs at issue are 8.1 (base salary), 8.7.2 (assignment pay for flight medics), 9.2.6 (previously 9.2.5) (application of annual leave), and 9.4.1 (holidays). The next step is to schedule a public hearing at which you will be asked to make a decision with respect to those four paragraphs. At the hearing, both the County management team and the Union will present evidence and explain their positions with respect to the rejected recommendations. Section 447.403(4)(d), F.S., states that after the hearing, you shall take "such action as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed impasse issues ...." The following are some important facts to the consideration of public interest: County Commissioners Impasse, Local 3909 and Monroe County Page 2 support staff. Firefighter turnover (resignations and terminations) in calendar year 2011 was 12.71 %, which is only approximately .75 percentage points higher than the County average. Of the 112 members of the bargaining unit, slightly more than 50% live in Monroe County. The rest live in the mainland. By way of comparison, approximately 50% of sworn officers employed by the Sheriff's Office live within Monroe County. The last collective bargaining agreement with IAFF Local 3909 expired on September 30, 2011. It was the second 3-year agreement between Local 3909 and Monroe County. Of the four paragraphs in dispute, the most significant financially is paragraph 8.1, base pay. The special magistrate is recommending step increases (only) in Years 2 and 3 of a new, 3-year agreement (which would begin retroactively last October 1, 2011). Step increases are increases given annually to firefighters on the anniversary of their employment, in our case up to 11 years of employment. In our step plan, each step represents an average of 4.4% increase in base pay from the previous year. After 11 years, the firefighter is "maxed" out and receives no further increases. Of the 110 firefighters covered by this bargaining unit, 20 have currently "maxed" out; the remainder would receive the step increases if awarded this year. If the special magistrate's recommendation is adopted, the net incremental cost for both years together would be approximately $680K, including salary and benefits (FICA, workers' compensation, life and health insurance, and FRS). The approximate cost of a step increase for one year only (e.g., what would be Year 3 of this agreement) would be approximately $260,000. After the hearing, the parties will put together a CBA incorporating your decisions regarding the four disputed issues. After that, the new CBA will be submitted to the union membership for ratification. If the agreement is ratified, the new CBA will be in effect for three years beginning last October 1, 2012. If the agreement is not ratified, your decisions will be final, but the agreement will be in effect only for the balance of this fiscal year. The parties will essentially begin bargaining a new agreement immediately. The period of time between now and the hearing is a "blackout" period. Neither side is allowed to engage in an ex parte communication with you. Communication is allowed with notice to the other side. I will be scheduling the impasse hearing for 1:30 pm at the July 18, 2012 meeting. Thank you. Very truly yours, Roman Gastesi County Administrator Cc: Mark Floyd, Esq., on behalf of IAFF Local 3909 IA FF LOCAL 3909/MONROE COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECOMMENDATION SPECIAL MAGISTRATE REPORT STATE OF FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION April 9, 2012 In the Matter of Board of County Commissioners Of Monroe County, Florida And Professional Fire Fighters Of Monroe County, IAFF, Local 3909 APPEARANCES For the County Cynthia L. Hall, Esquire Asst. County Attorney For IAFF Local 3909 Mark W. Floyd, Esquire Mierzwa & Associates, P. A. Special Magistrate, Marc A. Winters Case No. SM-2011-066 BACKGROUND This Special Magistrate Report involves the Board of County Commissioners, Monroe County, Florida, (hereafter referred to as the "County") and two (2) bargaining units of the Professional Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 3909, (hereafter referred to as the "Union"). There are approximately one hundred and thirteen (113) employees in these two (2) bargaining units. The Professional Fire Fighters of Monroe County, IAFF, Local 3909 have been certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of two bargaining units of employees employed by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida. Local 3909 holds certification no. 1283 which certifies Local 3909 as the bargaining agent of a rank and file bargaining unit consisting of all employees employed in the classification of Firefighter/Paramedic, Firefighter/EMT, Airport Rescue Firefighter, Paramedic, Emergency Medical Technician and Flight Nurse. These employees are covered by the Unit One Agreement. Local 3909 also holds certification no. 1284 which certifies Local 3909 as the exclusive bargaining agent for a supervisory bargaining unit of employees including those employed in the classifications of Fire Rescue Battalion Chief, Shift Captain/Airport Rescue Fire Fighters, Fire Rescue Captain, and Fire Rescue Lieutenant. Those employees are covered by the Unit Two Agreement. There are approximately 120 employees total in the County's Emergency Services Department in which there are approximately 113 bargaining unit employees within both units. All but two employees in these two bargaining units are dual certified as firefighters and either EMTs or Paramedics. One employee is certified as an EMT but not a Firefighter. Another employee is certified as a Paramedic but not a Firefighter. The Unit One Agreement was effective October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2011. Likewise, the Unit Two Agreement was effective October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2011. Although both Agreements have expired, the County has maintained the status quo after expiration of those Agreements. In a letter, dated September 15, 2011, the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission duly appointed Marc A. Winters as Special Magistrate in this matter pursuant to Section 447.403, Florida Statues (2007) and under the Florida Administrative Code Rule 60CC-3-004. For the purposes of the parties negotiations, and this impasse resolution proceeding, the parties have agreed to combine the negotiations for a successor agreement for both the Unit One Agreement and the Unit 2 Agreement. This single impasse resolution proceeding is to, by mutual agreement of the parties, resolve the impasse reached between the parties with respect to both Agreements. The issues presented herein will be applied by the parties to both Agreements as necessary. Because the issues are similar, there is no need for separate recommendations +A regarding the Unit One Agreement and the Unit Two Agreement. The parties to this Special Magistrate Hearing and Report are attempting to bargain their third (3'd) Collective Bargaining Agreement. The parties have been negotiating for successor agreements since before the end of calendar year 2010. Despite meeting on numerous occasions, approximately seven (7) times and reaching tentative agreements on approximately twelve (12) issues, the parties were not able to reach an agreement. As a result, the County declared an impasse on August 19, 2011, and the parties proceeded to a Special Magistrate's Hearing, A Special Magistrate's Hearing was conducted on Wednesday, February 22, 2012, beginning at approximately 9:00 A. M., at the County's conference room. At the conclusion of the Hearing the parties agreed to submit closing briefs, to this Special Magistrate. Those briefs were ultimately due, and received, by the Special Magistrate, through email, on April 2, 2012. At that time and date the Hearing was deemed closed. This Special Magistrate would like to convey his appreciation not only for the courtesy and cooperation given to the Special Magistrate by both parties, but to each other as well. The Hearing was conducted in accordance with the Florida Bargaining Statues set forth in Section 447-405. Section 447405 sets forth the criteria this Special Magistrate is to consider in making impasse recommendations. The criteria are: (1) Comparison of the annual income of employment of the public employees in question with the annual income of employment maintained for the same or similar work of employees exhibiting like or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions in the local operating area involved. (2) Comparison of the annual income of employment of the public employees in question with the annual income of employment of public employees in similar public employee governmental bodies of comparable size within the state. (3) The interest and welfare of the public. (4) Comparison of peculiarities of employment in regard to other trades or professions, specifically with respect to: (a) Hazards of employment. (b) Physical qualifications. (c) Educational qualifications. (d) Intellectual qualifications. (e) Job training and skills. (1) Retirement plans. (g) Sick leave. (h) Job security. 3 (5) Availability of funds. In writing this report, this Special Magistrate considered comparable data and like issues, entered into evidence, including the following: Comparison of the annual income, with the annual income of public employees in similar public employee governmental bodies of comparable size, within the State of Florida and primarily South Florida. And, Comparison of the annual income, for similar work of employees exhibiting like or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions within Monroe County. Any and all items or proposals not previously agreed upon or specifically addressed within this Report are considered to be withdrawn. Any and all items or proposals agreed to and any tentative agreements made prior to the date of this Report, that are not specifically addressed in this Report, are recommended to be incorporated into the new Agreement. Where this Special Magistrate recommends changes, it may be sufficient to indicate the change only without quoting the exact language of the parties proposals. The following fifteen (15) issues are the issues that were considered during the Special Magistrate Hearing on February 22, 2012. Issue No. 1, Para. 2.36, Definition of Paramedic. Issue No. 2, Para. 3.5.1, Allocation of Union Pool Hours. Issue No. 3, Para. 3.5.2, Use and Forfeiture of Pool Hours. Issue No. 4, Para. 7.3.2, Trainee Employment. Issue No. 5, Para. 7.5, Paramedic Certification For Airport Personnel. Issue No. 6, Para. 7.6, New Section, Incentive Pay. Issue No. 7, Para. 8.1, Base Salary. Issue No. 8, Para. 8.7.2, Assignment Rate. Issue No. 9, Para. 8.10, New Section, Shift Exchange. 4 Issue No. 10, Para. 9.2.5, Annual Leave Slots. Issue No. 11, Para. 9.2.6, Annual Leave. Issue No. 12, Para. 9.4.1, Holiday Leave. Issue No. 13, Para. 9.11.3, New Section Educational Reimbursement. Issue No. 14, Para. 9.20, New Section, Funeral Leave. Issue No. 15, Article 11, New Article, Promotions. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issue No. 1 - ARTICLE 2: DEFINITIONS 2.36 Paramedic The County and the Local have substantially similar proposals which would modify the definition of a Paramedic. The Union proposes to add the following language to the existing language: "is authorized by the Medical Director to act in such capacity, and participates in the Monroe County Fire Rescue Emergency Medical System in that Capacity." The County's concern was that any definition of a Paramedic must include three factors. The State of Florida certification, clearance by the Medical Director, and someone who agrees to act in that position. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: Very simply, the Union's proposal, as written, meets all three of the County's requirements. Therefore, the recommendation is to adopt the Union's proposal as written. Issues No. 2 & 3 - ARTICLE 3: UNION RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3.5 Union Pool Hours 3.5.1 Allocation of Hours 3.5.2 Use and Forfeiture of Hours The above two issues for 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 can and will be discussed together. During the three year period of the expired collective bargaining agreements, the County contributed hours to the Union Pool Hours. The County contributed 240 hours during the first year of those agreements, 320 hours during the second year of those agreements, and 480 hours during the third year of those agreements. Local 3909 proposes to maintain a County contribution, although at a reduced rate, and to create a method for employees to contribute to the Union Pool Hours. The County proposes to eliminate the County's contribution to the Union Pool Hours in its entirety. The fundamental differences between the County proposal and the Union proposal are in who contributes the hours. The County proposal would have Union members contribute 100% of the cost. The Union proposal would have the County pay for half, and the Union pay for half, up to a maximum of 240 hours. In Section 3.5.1, Local 3909 proposes to cut the County's 2010-2011 contribution to the Pool by 50%. The Union proposes to establish an annual contribution to the Pool by the County of 240 hours. In the same section, the County proposes to eliminate the County's contribution to the Pool and create a method by which Union members may contribute up to 3 hours annually of vacation leave towards the Pool. In Section 3.5.2, Local 3909 proposes to maintain the current provisions regarding the approval of use of Pool hours by the County Fire Chief. Local 3909 also specifies that hours contributed by the County to the Pool which are not approved and used during any fiscal year shall be forfeited at the end of each fiscal year. Local 3909 finther proposes to create a method by which members of Local 3909 may contribute up to 4 hours of vacation leave to the Pool. Local 3909 would then be required to utilize the hours donated by the County and the hours donated by members of Local 3909 on an hour for hour basis so that for every 1 hour used which is contributed by the County, 1 hour is also used from the hours contributed by members of Local 3909. If there are no hours contributed by members of Local 3909, Local 3909 would not be able to utilize the hours contributed by the County. The County similarly proposes to maintain the current provision regarding the approval by the County Fire Chief. The County also proposes to include a provision which, similar to the proposal advanced by Local 3909, would not cause the forfeiture of hours donated by members of Local 3909. Finally, the County proposes the creation of a provision specifying that any bargaining unit member whose time is being paid for out of the this Pool, or who is engaged in activities paid for by the Pool, and who is injured shall not be considered to have suffered a line - of -duty injury. The Union argues that the current system providing for a County contribution was established to mirror the system utilized by the City of Key West. That system was adopted from the City of Key West's collective bargaining agreement with its local affiliate of the IAFF. The Union further argues that the Union time pool hours are needed and primarily utilized to tend to County business involving Local 3909. This includes the representation of employees during investigations, tending to collective bargaining, and meeting with County officials. The County's position is that the testimony establishes that how pool hours are contributed here is different from the way in which union pool hours are calculated in the majority of CBAs, and the union pool hours represents an unfair financial burden for the County. The County argues that until now, the County has been providing all of the money to pay for union pool hours, an average of 320 per year, at a cost in excess of $16K per year to backfill the positions (including overtime). The County further argued that this language is not consistent with what most other counties in the State are doing. The County also argued that use of the union pool hours causes the County to have to backfill for the absence of the Union representative. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: Currently, 480 hours is contributed to the Union Pool Hours by the County. The Union proposes cutting the County's contribution in half to 240 hours, per year, and then request that their union members contribute up to 4 hours of vacation time, per year, to the pool. The County would cut their contribution in its entirety while providing that union members may contribute up to 3 hours of vacation time per year. First of all, the parties are in a relatively new collective bargaining relationship with only two previous contacts. As the old adage goes, " you need to walk before you run". For the County to seek such a wholesale change, this soon, in the Union Pool Hours, there needs to be a credible amount of justification. The fact that other similarly situated collective bargaining agreements are not doing the pool hours like Monroe County, in and of itself, is not enough of a justification. For some reason, the authors of the last Collective Bargaining Agreement felt it necessary to mirror such language as found in the City of Key West and the IA.FF Agreement. Interesting enough is the fact that neither the County nor the Union, for that matter, presented any evidence regarding any savings to be achieved by implementation of the County's proposal or the Union's proposal. For the County to now justify not providing any hours to the pool, some evidence showing the cost of the hours, the amount to be saved and the reasons why the County can no longer afford this cost, needed to be proffered and explained. The one argument that did speak to monetary terms, by the County, was over the cost of the backfill. However, that argument is really without merit or at the very least does not apply here. Utilization of the Union Pool Hours causes a vacancy which, under certain circumstances, must or may be backfilled. Such is true under the Union's and the County's proposals. The County's proposal does not prevent or eliminate the need for backfill. The need for backfill is the same under either proposal. This Special Magistrate finds that the removal of all hours contributed by the County to the Union Pool Hours, without a better justification, for this next contract term, is unreasonable. However, it is also unreasonable for the Union to expect such a large contribution from the County, in order for the Union to conduct its business. Based on the Union's proposal, it appears that they would agree. A reasonable resolve to this issue, and as such is the recommendation, for this three year Collective Bargaining Agreement, and one that is not uncommon in other Public Sector collective bargaining agreements where finances or cost is not the main deterrent, would be for the County to contribute 120 hours per year while permitting the Union's members to contribute up to 3 hours of vacation time per year. The hours, the usage and the forfeiture will be as defined in the Union's proposals for 3.5.1 and 3.5.2. The hours would be used on an hour by hour basis until the County's hours expire and then any remaining time would be covered by the amount of union contributed hours that are left. If there are no union contributed hours in the pool, the Union would not be able to utilize the hours contributed by the County. The County's proposal over the creation of a provision specifying that any bargaining unit member whose time is being paid for out of the this Pool, or who is engaged in activities paid for by the Pool, and who is injured shall not be considered to have suffered a line -of -duty injury is also reasonable and will be included in 3.5.2. Issue No. 4 - ARTICLE 7: CERTIFICATION, STANDARDS, AND TRAINING 7.3.2 Trainee Employment Here the parties, once again, have substantially similar proposals. The only difference is the pay to be received by a trainee once he/she has been certified by the State of Florida, cleared by the Medical Director and is operating as a Paramedic. The Union's contention is that once that trainee is certified by the State, cleared by the Medical Director and is operating as a Paramedic for the County, that trainee should be paid as if he/she has been a Paramedic all along or in other words, prospectively. The Union, however, is not proposing any retroactive pay. The County's main concern is that the trainee, once certified by the State and once cleared by the Medical Director, then be operating or working as a Paramedic within the County system before being paid as a Paramedic. Once again the Union and the County are in agreement and very close on what the written language should be. The Union's proposal needs only a little tweeking to be acceptable to the County. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: It is the recommendation that the Union's proposal be adopted with the last sentence re -written as follows: Upon obtaining certification by the State of Florida as a paramedic and being cleared to act as a paramedic by the Medical Director, and is operating as a paramedic, the trainee/employee then shall be paid a base salary equal to that which the employee would receive if employed as a Firefighter/Paramedic since the employee's original date of hire. There shall not, however, be any retroactive pay as a result of being slotted as a paramedic. Issue No. 5 - ARTICLE 7: CERTIFICATION, STANDARDS, AND TRAINING 7.5 Paramedic Certification for Airport Personnel Both parties have identified and agreed that Section 7.5 be deleted, in its' entirety, from the Collective Bargaining Agreement. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: Therefore: the recommendation is for Section 7.5 to be deleted. Issue No. 6 - ARTICLE 7: CERTIFICATION, STANDARDS, AND TRAINING 7.6 New Section Local 3909 proposes to create a 5% incentive pay for those employees who are certified by the State of Florida as a paramedic but are not cleared to act as a paramedic by the medical director. This 5% additional compensation would be paid in the same manner as the 10% additional compensation deleted from Section 7.5 but would apply throughout the County and not just at the airport. Essentially, Local 3909 proposes the creation of "patch pay" for those employees certified as paramedics by the State of Florida but not cleared to act as such by the medical director. The Union's proposal will allow those paramedics assigned to the airport, a trainee or other employee waiting for a Paramedic slot to open up, and any other employee who is certified as a paramedic but not cleared by the Medical Director, to be compensated fairly for their enhanced level of education and experience being brought to the job. This is education and experience which is valuable when providing emergency medical services which benefits the citizens of and visitors to Monroe County, and, primarily as a result of the deletion of the 10% incentive currently paid to airport employees, comes at very little cost to the County. The County opposes the creation of this 5% incentive. Consistent with its approach to paragraphs 2.36, 7.3.2, and 7.5, the County's position is that it should only pay for services actually performed. As Chief Callahan and Deputy Chief Boswell testified, doing otherwise would act as a disincentive for paramedics to continue to act in that capacity. Incorporating this language could very conceivably encourage paramedics to drop from being paramedics to EMTs SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMWIENDATION: The very premise and intent of the changes and modifications added to sections 2.36, 7.3.2 and the deletion of 7.5 is that employees be paid for service they actually perform in their classification as defined for Paramedics. To add this patch pay, this time, when it would benefit the Bargaining Unit to put any increases in other areas, is somewhat premature. The Union's proposal is concerned with the period of time between when an employee is certified by the State of Florida as a Paramedic and then cleared by the Medical Director to act as a Paramedic. Absent from the testimony, at the Hearing, was any indication that the time it takes to be cleared by the Medical Director, for an employee to act as a paramedic, is unreasonable or too lengthy of a process. Evidence of an unreasonable or lengthy process, for being cleared by the Medical Director, coupled with employees using their training and knowledge to work above what their . classification calls for in an extended period of time would then justify some type of incentive pay. For the term of this Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Union's proposal is not recommended. Issue No. 7 - ARTICLE 8: SALARIES AND SUPPLEMENTS 8.1 Base Salaries The County has proposed no cost of living adjustment and no step increases for the duration of this collective bargaining agreement. The Union has proposed no cost of living adjustment and no step increases for the first year of the collective bargaining agreement. The Union then proposes step increases in the second and 10 third years of the collective bargaining agreement and a 3% cost of living adjustment in the third year of the agreement. The County argues that the Collective Bargaining Agreement that just expired was the second agreement between Monroe County, a fairly new fire department, and Local 3909. During the six years covered by those two agreements, employees covered by the two bargaining units received 3% COLA each and every year and step increases, up to a maximum of 10 steps in one contract and 11 steps in the other, with an average of 4% per step, each and every year, with the exception of one year in which they forwent their step increase but added a step (i.e., their employees had one more year in which to max out). During 5 of those same 6 years, County non -union employees received no salary increases, no COLA and no merit increases. The County also argues that these two bargaining units are paid very well in comparison to other Monroe County Firefighters and are in line with the salaries to all comparables within Southeast Florida. No increases in cost of living or step increase for this contract will still keep them in line with external comparables while keeping wages and pay increases more in line with the internal comparables who work for Monroe County. The Union recognizing that Local 3909 has benefitted from the fact that it entered into a three year collective bargaining agreement in 2008 which allowed its bargaining unit employees to continue to receive step increases and cost of living adjustments at a time when other County employees did not enjoy the same, Local 3909 seeks to implement a compromise. Local 3909 will suspend advancement in the step plan for one year and proposes no cost of living adjustments for two years. Although this will cause some limited wage compression, Local 3909 believes that one year of wage compression can be corrected at some point in the future. However, the Union argues that under the County's proposal a significant wage compression would occur. Under the County's proposal, an employee hired three years from now would be paid the exact same base rate of pay as an employee hired today. The employee hired today would receive no additional base compensation for his or her years of service. The only way to correct this at some point in the future would be to allow that more senior employee to bump multiple steps in a year. The costs associated with such corrective measures make it nearly impossible to actually implement. Additionally, the Union would point out that one, those other County employees are set to receive a 5% across the board increase during fiscal year 2011- 2012 which Local 3909's bargaining unit members will not receive and two, that not every member of the bargaining unit receives a step increase. Once an employee is topped out in the step plan, no step increase is received. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: It is clear from the testimony given and the evidence presented that this wage proposal by the County is more about pay inequity within the County then it is an inability to pay issue. However, the County believes their firefighter employees are also very comparable with like employees externally. The facts are as the evidence corroborates that the pay for the employees of both bargaining units are very much in line with those of like employees within Monroe County and those similarly situated in the Counties use for comparable purposes. These bargaining unit employees are not the highest, nor are they the lowest paid but they are well paid. The facts also support that most of the external comparables used, outside of Monroe County, will be receiving some form of wage increases, mostly step increases, during the contract term which is being bargained now for Local 3909's two units. The Union is also correct in their argument of what occurs with the compression of wage scale when no step increases are given. The end result is to set the parties up for a bump step later on which is never a good thing. School Districts and their teacher bargaining units, where bump steps are common, spend a lot of time and resources trying to smooth a bump step once one is established. The driving force in this issue is the internal pay increase inequity between Local 3909's bargaining units and other County employees. Seeing that Local 3909's bargaining units are comparable with external groups, the County is correct to try and minimize, for morale purposes and fairness alone, the inequity within pay increases that have been given and have not been given over the past years. However, to withhold all increases from Local 3909's two bargaining units is unreasonable. The wage compression that would occur would, at the very least cause a morale problem for the County while at the same time Local 3909's bargaining units would not keep the pace with other external comparables in Southeast Florida The County has not proven a viable justification for those inequities to occur. Although the Union made a good faith effort to help the County, they did not go far enough. At the same token, the County's offer of no increases cuts too far. Therefore, it is the Special Magistrates recommendation that the County will provide step increases for these bargaining units in the second and third year of this Agreement. Issue No. 8 - ARTICLE 8: SALARIES AND SUPPLEMENTS 8.7.2 Assignment Rate 12 The Union proposes to modify the manner in which the County pays the 7% salary supplement payable to Flight Qualified Paramedics or Firefighter/Paramedics assigned to a work location, the Trauma Star hangar, where he or she is designated to be a flight -medic and is assigned to an air ambulance subject to immediate dispatch on a medi-vac mission. Presently, pursuant to Section 8.7.1, all employees who are flight qualified receive a salary supplement equal to five (5%) percent of their normal rate of pay. Those who are assigned to a work location where they are - designated as a flight -medic and subject to immediate dispatch on a medi-vac mission receive an additional salary supplement of 7%. This 7% is presently paid to the same employees day in day out whether or not they are actually assigned to that work location and subject to immediate dispatch on a medi-vac mission. The Union proposes to, effective October 1, 2013, convert the 7% additional supplemental pay to the true hazardous duty pay as it was originally intended. Although Local 3909 believes that the current language provides that any employee who is actually assigned to that work location and subject to immediate dispatch should receive the additional 7%, that is not how it has worked in practice. Therefore, Local 3909 proposes to create language to clarify that only those employees actually assigned to that work location and actually subject to immediate dispatch on a medi-vac mission shall be entitled to receive the additional 7% salary supplement. The County opposes the Union's proposal. From time to time, in order to keep their qualification, it is necessary to rotate the flight medics permanently assigned to the Trauma Star hangar out of that station, on a short term basis, and rotate the flight qualified paramedics in, so they can get flight time. It is the County's position that the Union's proposal unnecessarily penalizes the flight medics, who are being rotated out through no choice of their own but simply to accommodate the need of the other flight -qualified paramedics to keep up their flight time. In addition, it would create a quagmire of paperwork for Payroll, which would be forced to process Personnel Action Forms to change the rate of pay every time the flight medics rotate out of the Trauma Star hangar. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: It is clear that the intent of the 7% supplemental pay is for those assigned to the medi-vac unit at Trauma Star and who are subject to immediate dispatch on a medi-vac mission. Currently, the County only provides this supplemental pay for those who are classified Flight Medics. These Flight Medics receive the supplemental pay regardless if they are working in that capacity of being subject to immediate dispatch on a medi-vac mission. The Union's proposal would pay, the supplemental pay, only to those employees who are designated to be a Flight Medic and subject to immediate dispatch on a medi-vac mission. 13 The Union's proposal seems to go hand in hand with the County's argument for trainees in Section 2.36, where the County argues that not only should a trainee be certified as a paramedic and have the medical director's clearance but they need to participate in that capacity as a paramedic to receive the paramedic pay. The County's argument, now, seems contradictory to their position with the paramedic trainee. That same rationale should be used here as well. It makes no sense to pay a supplemental pay to an employee who is not working in that capacity for which he/she is receiving the extra pay. The recommendation is to adopt the Union's proposal effective October 1, 2013. Issue No. 9 - ARTICLE 8: SALARIES AND SUPPLEMENTS 8.10 New Section Shift Exchange Issue No. 11- ARTICLE 9: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 9.2.6 New Section Annual Leave Issue No. 14 - ARTICLE 9: EMPLOYEE BENEFTTS 9.20 New Section Funeral Leave Issue No. 15 - ARTICLE 11: NEW ARTICLE PROMOTIONS The following grouping of issues and proposals, due to the similarity with regards to both party's arguments, can and will be discussed together. Local 3909 has proposed to incorporate into the Collective Bargaining Agreement the County's Standard Operating Procedures and/or Policies & Procedures regarding shift exchanges (Section 8.10), vacation leave requests (Section 9.2.6), funeral leave (Section 9.20), and promotions (Article XI). The County has rejected each of these proposals. It is the Union's position that this is only the third collective bargaining agreement between the parties and collective bargaining agreements tend to evolve over time. Often, Union's will agree to initial collective bargaining agreements which are not as desirable as the Union may want, but at least establish some written agreement between the parties. Then, over time, the Union seeks to strengthen that agreement. That is exactly what Local 3909 proposes to do here. 14 The Union finther argues that by allowing the County to continually change standard operating procedures defeats the purpose of having a collective bargaining agreement. Securing these procedures in the collective bargaining agreement will establish consistency in the workplace, prevent abuse by the County, and offer employees a dependable representation of the terms and conditions of their employment. The County argues that the Union's proposed language would embed (or codified) the department's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) into language contained in the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement. Given that the department is so young, it still needs flexibility. Therefore, the move to add language referring to a specific SOP into the CBA, which would have the effect of hampering the department's ability to respond to changing personnel needs, is not in the department's best interest, as well as not being consistent with prior practice. 8.10, Shift Exchange The Union argues that Firefighters often rely on shift exchange, particular when vacation slots are limited. These shift exchanges allow firefighters to trade one shift for another so that they may tend to personal business or simply have a day off from work. A firefighter will then pay that exchange back by working an additional day for another employee. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: Shift exchanges or trades as they are more commonly referred are a normal operating procedure in most workplaces whether it be in industry, in the private sector, or in service related industries, such as Firefighters, in -the Public Sector. Trades are a normal way of life. The Union is correct that collective bargaining agreements evolve over time. The Union is also correct that shift exchanges or trades are a mandatory subject for bargaining. Normally trades are negotiated into a collective bargaining agreement when or after certain events take place. Those events are: When there happens to be an excessive amount trades being exchanged that it becomes an administrative nightmare for the employer, or, when the quantity of trades becomes so overwhelming to the employer that the shift exchanges are mishandled by the employer; or, when trades are being unreasonably denied; or, when the approval of trades is not being applied evenhandedly. 15 This will only be the parties third Agreement. As such there is absolutely no evidence, at least at this point, that shift exchanges are being unreasonably denied or mishandled administratively. This issue is just not ripe yet as I am sure it will be at some future point in time. Therefore it is the recommendation, for the term of this Collective Bargaining Agreement, not to recommend the Union's proposal. 9.2.6, Annual Leave (Vacation) In Section 9.2.6, Local 3909 seeks to incorporate by reference S.O.P. 100.11. That S.O.P. regulates vacation leave requests. Again, Local 3909 seeks to incorporate the policy as if fully restated in the collective bargaining agreement. It is the Union's position that the procedure for requesting the use of annual (vacation) leave should be outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. As argued above, the County rejects the Union's proposal. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: After reviewing the parties proposals, their positions on the proposals and the current language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, it has come to this Special Magistrate's attention that what the Union seeks is already contained in Section 9.2.5. The County's Administrative Procedures for Annual Leave are already referenced in 9.2.5. Incorporated by reference those procedures are, for all intents and purposes, part and parcel of the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement and, as such, subject to the parties grievance and arbitration procedures. The only part of the Union's proposal that is not there is for the procedures to be listed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The listing of those procedures can be accomplished two ways. First they can be listed under 9.2.5, or as a new section 9.2.6, or the Monroe County S.O.P. 7.01 can be attached as an exhibit. During the parties discussion of these recommendations, they can decide which they prefer. Based on the discussion above, the recommendation is for the Union's proposal as discussed by this Special Magistrate. 9.20, Funeral Leave 16 In Section 9.20, Local 3909 seeks to incorporate the language found in Section 7.05 of the County's Personnel Policies and Procedure Manual in connection with funeral leave. The only dispute between the parties, to the extent that there even is a dispute, involves the inclusion of grandparents in-law, brothers-in-law, and sisters-in-law as members of an employee's immediate family for which funeral leave may be utilized. The County's concern or position is that at the hearing, the Union indicated that it would agree to language saying that employees would receive one shift off with pay. The parties also agreed that the list of family members should be the same as the list of family members listed in the County's personnel policies and procedures manual. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: It appears that both the proposals and arguments presented by the parties are really in agreement. Incorporating Section 7.05 into the parties Collective Bargaining Agreement should not hamper, in any manner, the County's ability to respond to changing personnel needs. For that reason, the recommendation is to adopt the Union's proposal with the concerns listed above incorporated, ie., the list of family members should be the same as the list of family members listed in the County' personnel policies and procedures manual and that employees of Local 3909's bargaining units would receive one shift off with pay. Article 11, Promotions Local 3909 seeks to establish in the collective bargaining agreement the manner in which employees may be promoted to the rank of Lieutenant. Here, the Union does propose to modify the current S.O.P. somewhat rather than simply incorporate in the S.O.P. by reference. In Section 11.3(A)(2), Local 3909 proposes to, effective October 1, 2013, require all candidates for promotion to be certified by the State of Florida as a Paramedic. Local 3909 also proposes to not credit any previous career service as a firefighter at another department at a 3 :1 ratio as allowed by Section IH(A)(3)(a) of S.O.P. 110.20. Local 3909 also proposes enhancements to the education requirements reflected in Section 11.3(A)(4). Local 3909 then proposes to modify the weighting system used for grading each applicant. Local 3909's proposed weighting system can be found in Section 11.5(A). Local 3909 also proposes to establish the "Rule of one" regarding the method of selecting from qualified applicants in Section 11.5(D). 17 As listed and argued above, the County opposes the Union's proposal for inclusion and modification of their S.O. P.. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: As with the Union's proposal on shift exchanges, the evidence at this time does not support incorp rating and changing the County's Policy and Procedure on Promotion. Therefore, the Union's proposal is not recommended. Ts,. - - ARTICLE 9: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 9.2.5 Annual. . ive Slots Local 3 -poses to increase the number of vacation slots available to bargaining unit --loyecb iru. ,ts to four slots department wide each working day. Local 3909 does piup: +o limit the use of those slots to no more than three paramedics or three EMTs on any one da I "bout author "n from the Fire Chief or his designee. In support of its proposal. Local 3909 presented testimony indicating that the department has almost tripled in size wout increasing the number of slots available for use of vacation leave. This means that there are almost three times as many employees competing for each vacation slot. Of most significance :-e the holidays and days on which children are not attending school. However, also itr�orta ' -le fact that junior employees have virtually no shot at having a desirable day of: ., a so many employees are being compressed into only three available slots. Likewise, Firefighters use these vacation slots to get time away from work to attend education and training courses not provided by the Department. The County proposes to maintain the status quo and continue to allow three bargaining unit personnel off per working day. The County has offered and is prepared to accommodate three vacation slots, but cannot commit to four. Part of the reason is the financial burden, at least half which is in the form of overtime. The only testimony offered by the Union was that there were days on which preferred vacation days could not be taken, although all the days allotted and wanted were taken in a year. There is no obligation on the part of an employer to accommodate an employee's request for specific days. 18 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: With growing pains this issue always comes to the forefront. However, without more evidence from the Union, in the form of grievances, denied annual leave slips and testimony that proffers many employee are not being accommodated with their annual leave request, the Employer must be given leeway and flexibility to work out the staffing and annual leave days off. Once the employment numbers have settled down and staffing is complete and the growth spurt is over, it is easier to lock into an increase number of guaranteed annual leave slots off. The County would know, idget for such days off and overtime coverage. \' _aid, the ' tnty, even working with the minimum number of 3 slots, should try to e as r.. y as possible, vacation requests, when they are able to give more than the 3'.iMVC, , t dots Off. Tn tl,�t end, ; eco! mendation is for the County to continue its use of the minimum 3 slots. .n ther ire times that additional slots may be accommodated, the County will not unrt:. v such request. Issu: - ARTICLE 9: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 9.4.1 Huuu:iy Leave Local 3909's proposal with regard to Section 9.4.1 is to include a provision providing that all members of Local 3909's bargaining unit will enjoy the same holidays as other County employ-.- -s and will not be carved out or excluded in any way from any designated holiday period. + ,oca13909 does not seek to increase the holiday pay earned or received by its employees, nor change the manner in which they earn or receive that pay. Local 3909 simply seeks to be treated in the same manner as every other County employee. The holidays observed by the County are outlined in the County's Personnel Policies & Procedures Manual. However, the Board of Commissioners has the ability to declare additional holidays. The County has, in the past, declared additional holidays without allowing members of Local 3909's bargaining units to fully participate in those holidays. If the County sees fit to declare an additional holiday, it should include its firefighters The County rejects the Union's proposal. 19 The Union's argument that firefighters had not received other "holidays" given as a one-time only benefit in the prior fiscal year (FY 2011, not 2012) for the County's non -union employees is without merit. The County argues that those two days off were not holidays, they were two specific days off (the employee's birthday and a "floating" day to be used at the employee's discretion). They were only given in the prior fiscal year, it is not a continuing trend. Because they were not holidays, and because the practice was a one-time only event, not repeated, for this reason the County believes there are no facts to support the need for this change. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: Employers in every sector, public and private and in every industry go through great lengths to keep employees, no matter how many employees or no matter how many different bargaining and non -bargaining units there may be equal and similar with regards to the number of holidays the employer gives off. Here the County gave their non -union employees their birthday and a floating day off as a one time only event. Despite the fact that the County has the holidays they observe listed in the County's Policy and Procedure Manual, in the collective bargaining arena and in labor relations, an employee's birth- day off and a floating day are both considered in the context of days off as holidays. Floating holidays and the employee's birthday are constantly being negotiated in contracts and being placed in Personnel Manuals as holidays whether it is a one time shot or not. This is one area where employees should not be treated differently. The recommendation is that the Union's proposal is adopted as per the discussion above. However, if the above actions, by the County were only a one shot deal this recommendation would then not matter. Issue No. 13 - ARTICLE 9: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 9.11.3 New Section Educational Reimbursement In Section 9.11.3, the parties have substantially similar proposals. The only difference between the two proposals is a provision proposed by the County which would provide that the $15,000 per fiscal year to be utilized by bargaining unit personnel for educational reimbursement would be "subject to appropriation by the Board of County of Commissioners." 20 It is the opinion of Local 3909 that this would defeat the entire purpose of establishing a $15,000 annual budget for educational reimbursements. The purpose of including that budget in the collective bargaining agreement is to ensure that there are funds available from which employees may receive educational reimbursements. If those funds are "subject to appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners," those fiords may not be available in any given year. If that is true, we have archieved nothing by including a provision establishing a minimum budget of $15,000. To include the County's proposed provision would be to defeat the entire purpose of Section 9.11.3. The County is in agreement with the Union's proposal and agrees that textbooks will be included in what the educational moneys will cover. SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION: Once again both parties have basically agreed with each other on the proposals. The Union is, however, correct that if the funds are subjected to appropriations by the Board of County Commissioners each year of the Agreement, that could be a problem that would undermine what was negotiated. The Agreement by the parties to accept this recommendation which is to adopt the Union's proposal should go hand in hand with the Board of County Commissioner's approval to fund this proposal each year of the Agreement. Miscellaneous Matters: As a matter of housekeeping simply to make sure the parties are on the same page. The County and the Union have both agreed to delete the classification of "Captain/Airport Rescue FF" and that such incumbents would be reclassified as "Fire Rescue Lieutenant" at no loss in pay. Respectfully submitted this 9' Day of April, 2012. Marc A. Winters, Special Magistrate 21 COUNTY RESPONSE STATE OF FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of Special Magistrate Impasse Proceedings Between Monroe County, Florida and Professional. Firefighters of Monroe County, IAFF Local 3909 PERC Special Magistrate Case No. SM- 2011-066 Response of Employer Monroe County To Recommendations Of Special Magistrate: Issues Accepted and Rejected On April 9, 2012, the Special Magistrate appointed in this matter rendered his Discussion and Recommended Decision in the above -captioned matter, as to sixteen issues. In accordance with F.S. 447.403(3) and Rule 60CC-3.008, F.A.C., the public employer in this matter, Monroe County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby files the following response indicating those recommendations accepted, and rejected. This response is timely filed A. Monroe County Accepts 10 Recommendations of the Special Magistrate. Monroe County accepts the recommendations of the Special Magistrate with respect to the following issues and corresponding paragraphs or articles: Issue Paragraph or Article 1 2.36 2 3.5.1 5 7.5 6 7.6 9 8.10 10 9.2.5 13 9.11.3 Subject Matter Definition paramedic Allocation of union pool hours Paramedic certification for ARFF personnel "Patch pay" for employees who are certified but not cleared Shift exchange Vacation slots Educational reimbursement 14 9.20 Funeral leave 15 XI Promotions 16 -- Deletion of Captain/Airport Rescue FF from the step plan B. Monroe County Accepts 2 Recommendations of the Special Magistrate With Clarification. Monroe County accepts the recommendations of the Special Magistrate with respect to the following issues and corresponding paragraphs, subject to the clarifications offered herein. Issue 3, Paragraph 3.5.2, use of union pool hours: In the third paragraph on page 8, the recommendation states: "The hours, the usage and the forfeiture will be as defined in the Union's proposal for 3.5.1 and 3.5.2." However, in the following sentence, the recommendation goes on to say that the hours would be used "on an hour by hour basis until the County's hours expire". (Emphasis added) The Union proposal did not contain the words `until the County's hours expire". The Union's proposal at the hearing was instead as stated in the final sentence of the same paragraph in the recommendation: If no hours were contributed by Union members to the pool, then the Union would be unable to use any union pool hours. To clear up any potential confusion, the County believes that the recommendation should read as follows: The County: shall contribute a maximum of 120 hours per year while allowing Union members (defined by the. Union as dues-paying:members) to contribute, a maximum of three hours of vacation time per year., The hours donated to the.Union pool- by Union members shallbe utilized'on art 11M.. for hours basis with any hours in the Umonri6oF contributed S y . ,ths b County so that for everyone (1) hour used which Iis con'tributed by tho County, one (1) hour is also used from the hours`contributed.by the members. Subject to this clarification, the County accepts this recommendation If the clarification is not accepted, then the County specifically rejects this recommendation. E1 The County also accepts the final paragraph of his recommendation as to this issue, stating making it clear that any injury suffered while using union pool hours shall not be considered to have suffered an in -line -of -duty injury. Issue 4, paragraph 7.3.2, paramedic trainee: The County accepts the language insofar as it says what the County was looking for in the definition of a paramedic — i.e., certified, cleared, and in fact operating as a paramedic. However, we suspect that the language that he has written in the last half of the first sentence and the second sentence does not achieve the goal of either the County or the Union and just introduces confusion We think that what the Union is really looking for is a commitment that once the person is promoted into the position of paramedic, that person will not have to start over in the pay plan at Step 0. The County is in agreement with that concept, and would propose the following language: Upon,obWn ag_'cm"batioa,.bythe;:State of F1'orida`as'a=..paramedic • •arid bemg� c1pW4, to act'. as ;a plc bq the MedicahDn ec6r• and, in; ficti �. ° ast a,Paramediti`aiaeelenployeershalLtlenK.ticspaid abase salarlras;'a paramedic:Witic po.loin steps.; By -way of illustration; if ari employee is aStep 4 EMT priori towpr°mo_ tiog- into thepositionLof paramedic, diat`pOrspa will, then be paid as-a=.S;tep{4, paramedic once meeting,• . There' the, of paramedics 'Via be iiwer ally ' .." •inn .. retroactive pay, as a regait ,of be* slotted as; - paramedicci Subject to the above clarification, the County accepts the recommendation. If the clarification is not accepted by the Union, then the County specifically rejects this recommendation. C. Monroe County Rejects 4 Recommendations of the Special Magistrate With Clarification. Monroe County specifically rejects the recommendations of the Special Magistrate with respect to the following issues and corresponding paragraphs: Issue Paragraph Subject Matter 8.1 Base salary 8.7.2 Assignment rate 11 9.2.6 (formerly Annual leave application 9.2.5) 12 9.4.1 Holidays Paragraph 81, Base Salaries: In his Findings, the Special Magistrate acknowledges evidence presented by the County at the hearing that the pay of employees in both bargaining units is very much in line with like employees within Monroe County as well as those similarly situated in the counties used (without objection) by the Union for comparable purposes. The Special Magistrate's next statement, that withholding pay increases would cause the bargaining units to "not keep pace with other external comparables in Southeast Florida" and would cause `wage compression", is completely speculative. At the hearing, the Union presented no evidence as to what other external comparables in Southeast Florida would do. The Special Magistrate also mistakenly found that "most external comparables used, outside of Monroe County, will be receiving some form of wage increases" during the contract term being bargained for. In fact, at the hearing, the County presented extensive evidence showing that no increases were included in current as well as past CBAs for the vast majority of firefighters in the Florida Keys, Southeast Florida, and other similar counties. The Union presented no evidence to contradict the County's information. Because it relies on speculation and ignores evidence that the trend in current CBA's is not to award salary increases, the County respectfully specifically rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendation as to paragraph 8.1, base salary. Paragraph 8 7.2, Assignment rate for f light medics: Currently, under paragraph 8.7.1 of the CBA, the County pays 5% "qualification" pay to those paramedics who are flight qualified, irrespective of where they are stationed The "qualification" pay is intended to reward those paramedics for their incremental knowledge and abilities. All paramedics who are flight -qualified receive the incremental 5% pay, irrespective of whether they ever fly on the County's air ambulance — Trauma Star — simply for holding the qualification. In addition, under 8.7.2, the County also currently pays an incremental 7% to those paramedics with a different job description — Flight Paramedic — because they are permanently assigned to the Trauma Star hangar. From time to time, Flight Paramedics — who are permanently assigned to Trauma Star — are cycled out of Trauma Star to another station, to make room on a temporary basis for flight -qualified paramedics. Usually the flight -qualified paramedics rotate through the Trauma Star hangar for only one day. They are rotated through the hangar to allow them to keep up their flight hours for credentialing. The Union's proposal is to dock the Flight Paramedics of their 7% assignment pay on those individual days when they are rotated out of Trauma Star, and to increase the pay of the flight -qualified paramedics for those same individual days by that same 7%. The County specifically rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendation for a Union- 1] requested change in current language of the collective bargaining agreement for two reasons. First, the County believes that it is fundamentally unfair to lower the pay of the permanently assigned Flight Paramedics, who are being rotated out through no fault of their own, but simply to accommodate the needs of the flight qualified paramedics, who are already receiving the +5% qualification pay. Second, changing the pay of both groups on a day-by-day basis will be a quagmire for the Clerk's Office in terms of issuing paychecks. The Special Magistrate acknowledged that County's evidence on this point but did not address it. For both reasons, the County specifically rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendation on this paragraph. Paragraph 9.2.6, administration of annual leave (former paragraph 9 2.5): Previously, this paragraph stated that annual leave would be administered in accordance with the County's Policies & Procedures Manual, as amended from time to time. The Union proposal removed the reference to the Manual and would refer instead to Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 100.11 as it was revised on June 29, 2010. The Special Magistrate recommends the Union's language. The County specifically rejects this recommendation, for three reasons. First, incorporation of a reference to a specific SOP issued by Monroe County Fire Rescue on a particular date will hamstring the department, and will inevitably lead to a difference in the way in which annual leave is administered vis-h-vis other County employees. This is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy of Monroe County, which is to treat its union and non -union employees as similarly as possible. Second, incorporation by reference to a particular SOP will inhibit the department's ability to modernize the SOPs, something which is necessary for a department which has relatively speaking only recently been established. As case in point, the specific SOP requested by the Union (the version existing as of last June 29, 2010) is no longer in effect, having been revised on February 15, 2010. Third, incorporation of the changed language is contrary to the usual practice with respect to CBAs, which is to keep current language as the first priority in the event of a stalemate. For all three reasons, the County specifically rejects the recommendation as to this issue. Paragraph 9.4.1, holidays. Currently, the CBA states that firefighters are entitled to the same finite list of 12 holidays set forth in the personnel Policies and Procedures Manual for non -union employees. All County firefighters receive 8 hours of incremental pay for each of those holidays, whether they are actually scheduled to work or not. If the firefighter is scheduled to work on that day, he or she receives 24 hours of pay for the shift, plus 8 hours for the holiday. 5 In bargaining, and again during the impasse hearing, the Union proposed to add language into the paragraph to change the term from "holiday" to "holiday period"•, defined to include (a) days in which County offices close early prior to a holiday (such as Christmas) and (b) the two days off with pay (birthday and floating day) given to County employees two years ago in lieu of raises (such as those given to the firefighters), if they were given again. The Special Magistrate's Findings acknowledged the Union's argument that the days given as one-time only benefit to County non -union employees were not "holidays". Nevertheless, the Special Magistrate went on to recommend adopting the union proposal. The County specifically rejects the recommendation. Although no birthdays or floating days off are currently planned, the County believes that to accept the recommendation and expand the finite list of holidays currently in the CBA in such a vague way is a dangerous precedent. Moreover, it introduces an inconsistently into the CBA. The term "holiday" is defined in the CBA. There is no definition for "holiday period", and no justification for this change. Conclusion For all the reasons stated, Monroe County accepts the recommendations with the clarifications offered as to paragraphs 3.5.2 and 7.3.2, and specifically rejects the recommendations as to paragraphs 8.1, 8.7.2, 9.2.6, and 9.4.1. Respectfully submitted, Dated: April 30, 2012 Cynthia L. Hall Assistant County Attorney FBN: 34218 Monroe County Attorney's Office 1111 12s' Street, Suite 408 Key West FL 33040 Voice: 305-292-3470 Telefax: 305-292-3 516 cc: Mark W. Floyd, Esq. Counsel for Professional Firefighters of Monroe County, IAFF Local 3909 UNION RESPONSE 0 04-30-'12 16:16 FWM- LAW oFFtt6 T-114 P0002/0002 F-227 MIERZWNA & ASSOCIATES, P.A. MAMAW 1 MIERZWA, ►R. MARK W. FUND $RAM A. MAMVENT MARFA L MEUUS SHELVE L. SENK Patricia Perry, Coordinator Mediation and Impasse Resolution Public EHIPIoYec� Relations Commission 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 150 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Dear Ms. Peery. 1AWWORrtl�, 332 ROMMUM Cau gawwo ►Acmm E%J) 96&fax1 r April 30, 2012 Re: Case No.: SM-2011-066 Monroe County dt Professional Fire Fightem of Monroe County FAQ go.- 1239-og 110 As you Imow, this fnm repne9ents the professional Fine lighters of Monroe County. iAFF, Local 3909. 11W Purpose of this comsPondence is to advise You that Local 3909 has d accePt the recommendations issued by Special that it will above-captionWWWW. Lo'W3909believestbatdm Winters in with the repa�esent reasonable Issued by Special Magistrate Winters �mp=+nmises between the hVes that Monroe County will join is a�p� Sp�� 1� mspeetive P=tlous. Local 3909 MasWft11VizLtera recommendations. Local 3909 appreciates the services Provided Winters inconnectionwith this matter. Ifyouhavean both the Co mmtsston and Special Magistrate these matters further, New i'c fire to ocutad me. Y questions or dents, Or ovish to discusses 9j" c John Hamburger, presider; Local 3909 Special Magistrate Marc Wnters Cynthia L. lwU Esq.