Can t We All Just Get Along? The Importance of Building and Maintaining an Effective Working Relationship Before, During and After Labor Negotiations

Transcription

1 Can t We All Just Get Along? The Importance of Building and Maintaining an Effective Working Relationship Before, During and After Labor Negotiations Nancy Dias Human Resources Manager City of Fremont Purpose This paper discusses restoring Union Management relationships following a period of leadership turnover and suspicious, adversarial relationships in the framework of the rules for bargaining in the Public sector (Meyers-Milias-Brown Act). Introduction The city of Fremont is on the southeast side of the San Francisco Bay; has a population of 215,000 and covers 92 square miles. It is the fourth most populous city in the Bay Area and fifth largest in California. Fremont is ethnically and culturally diverse: over 145 dialects are spoken in City schools and 44% of residents have Bachelor, Graduate or other Professional degrees. Due to the 2010 economic down turn, City staff has shrunk to 846. Most are represented by eight different bargaining units. The City must negotiate comprehensive Memorandums of Understanding with the following bargaining units every two years. Fremont Police Association SEIU Fremont Association of City Employees FAME Fremont Association of Management Employees IAFF Fremont Fire Fighters IAFF Battalion Chief Fremont Battalion Chief PETA Professional Engineers and Technicians Association of Fremont Teamsters Police Dispatchers OE3 Operating Engineers The role of Chief Negotiator has historically been assigned to two Human Resources Professionals: the Human Resources Director and the Labor Relations Manager. In theory, during non-bargaining years, the Director and Labor Relations Manager would spend time building positive relationships with each unit s Business Representative in order to establish a good climate for negotiations. However, in practice, the City has had

2 four Directors in the last two years. Two Directors operated under adversarial relationships with the unions, one worked to begin building more effective working relationships and the current Director is taking steps to reestablish honest and respectful relationships. Although I experienced union bargaining in the private sector, 2009 was my first opportunity to bargain in the Public Sector. I witnessed first hand how bargaining is negatively affected when the union views management with suspicion and distrust. Discussion In 1961 California enacted one of the nation s earliest comprehensive public employee labor relations laws, the George Brown Act. This act applied to employees of the state, school districts, public colleges, universities, counties, cities, and special districts. The act defined scope of representation as all matters relating to employment conditions and employer-employee relations. It provided for employee representation on a membersonly basis, by requiring the public employer to meet and confer with representatives of employee organizations upon request, and to consider as fully as it deems reasonable such presentations as are made by the employee organization on behalf of it members prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action. The act envisioned discussions between the employer and employee organizations leading to unilateral adoption of policies by the legislative bodies. This act was amended several times over the years but most notably in 1968 by the enactment of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) which removed local government agencies from the Brown Act and permitted Public agencies to enact local rules governing employment relations. The Act is Government Code, Sections and governs labor-management relationships within California local governments, Cities, counties and most special districts. Enforcement of the act rested in the courts until 2001 when jurisdiction was transferred to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The purpose of chapter 3500 of MMBA is to promote full communication between public employers and their employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other tems and conditions of employment between public employers and public employee organizations. The act s purpose is to promote the improvement of personnel management and employer-employee relations within the various public agencies in the State of California by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public employees to join organizations of their own choice and be represented by those organizations in their employment relationships with public agencies. 1 Chapter 3505 of the MMBA entitled Meet and Confer in good faith states The governing body of a public agency, or such boards, commissions, administrative officer or other representatives as may be properly designated by law or by such governing body, shall meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of such recognized employee 2

3 organizations, as defined in subdivision (b) Section 3501, and shall consider fully such presentations as are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action. Meet and confer in good faith means that public agency or such representatives as it may designate, and representative of recognized employee organizations, shall have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to freely exchange information, opinions and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to the adoption by the public agency of its final budget for the ensuing year. The process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses where specific procedures for such resolution are contained in local rule, regulation or ordinance, or when such procedures are utilized by mutual consent. 2 What this means This law exists to tell employers and employee groups that they must get along. In fact, not only that they must get along, but that they must meet and discuss anything related to the employment relationship which is specifically defined as items affecting wages, hours and working conditions. To ensure the act is followed most Cities have adopted Resolutions that contain procedures for administering the Act. Fremont adopted Resolution 9697 Employer-Employee Relations Rules and Regulations. With so much written guidance in place it seems like we should be able to follow the rules and arrive at mutually agreed upon decisions. However, this is where theory and practice diverge. Even though each side knows we must meet and confer on matters related to the employment relationship, problems arise regarding how, when, where and on what specific topics, to meet. Although Fremont strictly followed the rules during 2009 negotiations, one of our Labor groups mounted an aggressive campaign to stall negotiations. The unit complained during every bargaining session, made multiple frivolous information requests, caused periods of delay between each bargaining meeting, questioned every piece of information that was presented at the bargaining table and marched in solidarity into the City Council chambers to speak directly to the Mayor and Council members. This experience left me wondering: how things can go so wrong when the rules seem so clear? I was determined to learn more. In my quest for understanding I interviewed the following Labor Relations experts: Mary Kaye Fisher Interim Human Resources Director, City of Fremont Former Human Resources Director, Morgan Hill Jeff Kyle Human Resources Manger, City of Fremont William May Labor Negotiator, Alpine County, Nevada Below is a summary of my findings: Front Line Examples William May. With 20 years of bargaining experience William May reported the following experiences at the bargaining table: 3

4 Early in his career while representing a County and bargaining with very generous economic parameters May reported: The County s Deputy Association was convinced that because prior negotiations had left them with little economic gain that the County was out to cheat them again. Even though the package presented was generous, the unit did not believe it was as complete as possible and instead felt there was more money available. The Deputies placed large banner across a main City street proclaiming the County to be cheap and picketed on Board days. May said the unit finally settled a contract with a 15% pay increase over a two year period. However, the Deputies still felt, even with such a generous contract, more could have been provided. May says, This as an example of how the County s prior relationship with the unit severely impacted a negotiation that should have resulted in a swift, amicable and easy settlement. He learned from this experience that the negotiation is not all about the money. May s most trying set of negotiations was when he faced a unit of miscellaneous employees who believed they had been taken advantage of by management. May said, They could not even agree on the number of employees who would be released from work to participate in the negotiations. Non economic items were as important to them as economic issues. After 41 negotiations sessions the unit was still unhappy. Negotiations lasted over a year, mediators were called in and the Union filed multiple unfair labor practice charges. Ultimately, when settled, the employees lost wages because the settlement did not include back pay. The anger at settlement was as strong as at the beginning of negotiations. According to May, this was his worst example to date of how a negative union-management relationship not only set the tone for, but dominated the entire negotiations process. Mary Kaye Fisher. With over 25 years of bargaining experience in Washington State, Morgan Hill and Fremont, CA Mary Kaye Fisher reported the following experiences at the bargaining table: While working in Morgan Hill, CA Fisher negotiated a health care philosophy change. Morgan Hill was operating under a system where employees could receive cash reimbursements for 100% of their health care dollars not spent to purchase health care (medical, dental, and vision). This was done through a health care spending allowance that was loosely based on providing family coverage to employees. Those employees who were single or had one dependent would have significant cash reimbursed to them in addition to City-provided benefits. The change was to a system provided the required benefit level to each employee without giving away unused Benefit dollars. The proposal offered 100% City paid medical, dental and vision benefits) for employees, 96% City paid benefits for employees plus one dependent and 90% City paid benefits for employees plus families. It reduced and finally eliminating all cash 4

5 back. Fisher was able to negotiate this change without an attorney present and without giving something up in exchange for a perceived benefit reduction. When we discussed how this major change was accomplished, Mary Kaye reported that she was successful because prior to negotiations she had a strong working relationship with the AFSME unit and they understood and believed the state of the City required the change. Additionally, she reports that she allowed a lot of free discussions at the table instead of resolving everything in a caucus. Ideas were allowed to be discussed. Jeff Kyle. With over 20 years of bargaining experience in Fremont, Alameda County and Contra Costa County Jeff Kyle reported the following experiences at the bargaining table: While working with a large Bay Area City, an Operating Engineers unit was faced with the layoff of entry level Park Maintenance workers and vacancies in Street Maintenance. Kyle was able to negotiate the move of workers from the Park side to the Street side to avoid layoffs. This was difficult because in the beginning the Union opposed the move under the premise that Street Maintenance required a completely different skill set. Jeff was able to demonstrate the similarities of the skills required for each position and, more importantly, how the move would benefit the union, employees and the City. My discussions with these Labor Relations experts has helped me to more fully understand real world examples of how negotiations can be negatively impacted by a union s perceptions before bargaining begins. In their own words, each expert told me the same thing Labor Relations comes down to the building of relationships between two groups. During Negotiations What happens during negotiations is as important as what happens before the formal negotiation process begins. Once at the bargaining table every word, motion, gesture, action, reaction, error and omission will be interpreted with multiple meanings, some accurate some inaccurate. Each interpretation will be based on the perceptions and relationships that were established before bargaining began. The Meyers-Milias-Brown act tells us that we must Meet and confer in good faith on matters related to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. It does not provide guidance on how to bargain while at the table. To prepare for Fremont s bargaining sessions I learned it was important to understand the formal rules (Fremont s Resolution 9697). Additionally, before each bargaining session we outlined ground rules with each unit. Ground rules are helpful because they identify such items as how many people will be at the bargaining table, the fact that negotiations take place in confidence, when and if additional observers can be brought to bargaining sessions, turnaround time 5

6 for data requests and how proposals will be passed between union and management. Once established, these rules can help take emotion out of bargaining session. Appendix A herein outlines the Ground Rules Fremont used in 2009 when negotiating with one of our largest unions. These ground rules were helpful on two distinct occasions. First, as negotiations were dragging on without significant progress we were able to refer to the ground rules to guide the conversations on the exchange of proposals by the agreed-upon due date of June 3, Additionally, when the union wanted to turn the bargaining sessions into a circus by bringing in many additional union members we were able to refer to the rules to guide us as to how many people would be allowed concurrent time off for bargaining and how long each bargaining session should last. As noted, if we enter into negotiations under a cloud of suspicion it can be more difficult to reach an agreement on ground rules. However, once established, Ground Rules can help keep negotiations on track. Additionally, I learned how extremely important the role of Chief Negotiator is to the success of negotiations. Fremont, like many other Cities, is facing a budget gap for the 2010/2011 fiscal year. Following the Council s direction, Human Resources, with the help of a contracted Chief Negotiator, set out to gain concessions from 8 bargaining units totaling $1.5 M. The plan was to recover the $1.5 M through five layoff days in December which would result in salary savings. Or, at the Unions request, the City was willing to consider furlough days with the salary savings spread over all pay periods in the fiscal year which would result in a 2.3% pay reduction every pay period in the fiscal year and five days off in December. Negotiations were going slowly, but moving forward. Tentative agreements (TA) had been reached with three of the eight bargaining units. All TA s had Me Too language which meant if other units settled after the TA was signed and contained more generous language, the unit that had signed a TA would be eligible for the same deal. We were on track to meet the $1.5 M recovery target until the Chief Negotiator made a gesture at the table with our largest non-public safety unit. The gesture was a nod and a few words that lead the other side to think the City would be willing to consider their proposal of three, instead of five, furlough days. Once the perception was out that the three day offer might be considered it became extremely difficult to explain to the unit why the City could not accept the offer. Even though we demonstrated, using simple math, how the three day proposal would cause the City to fall short of closing the budget gap, the Union s perception was that the City was not bargaining in good faith and had no intention of listening to any of the Union s counter proposals. This one error at the bargaining table added to the unit s suspicion of the City. The unit did not feel respected, resulting in a deterioration of bargaining. To emphasize, what actually happens during negotiations is impacted by the relationship before the parties get to the bargaining table. If the parties have built a reasonable working relationship, the ground rules can be brief and mere gestures can be explained. 6

7 However, if either side enters into the bargaining process with a suspicious mind it can be difficult to reach any type of agreement. In the case noted above, because the contracted Chief Negotiator was not a Fremont employee, this person was perceived by the Union as a hired gun with little or no stake in outcome. Once an Agreement is Reached In my brief time working with Public Sector bargaining I have learned that an Agreement is never finalized. There may be ink on a page but contract language needs to be interpreted and applied to a variety of scenarios. Once formal negotiations conclude it seems the most difficult work begins. We concluded the 2009 negotiations in August of Since then, we have been striving to restore a good working relationship with each of our units. At the direction of our current Director we have been urged not to just say no because we can. Instead, we have listened and understood each request and where possible, found common ground. We have been careful to meet deadlines and keep the lines of communication open through phone calls and s. We don t expect things will change overnight but may improve incrementally. Recently, we had a very open and frank discussion with a Union President about some of the things that went wrong, from their perspective, during our recent furlough talks and received suggestions on how to make improvements. While this was not an easy discussion, it did provide us with an important perspective of how the Union receives and interprets information. This feedback will help us frame our future messages. Conclusions One thing is clear to me as I look forward to becoming a stronger Public Sector negotiator. I must first work to earn the respect of the members I will face at the table. I will need to be clear in my oral and written communications with the units. I will need to provide accurate and timely data, follow the requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and remain calm when talk at the table hats up. I will spend significant time in the next year building a professional relationship with each unit. Finally, while at the bargaining table I will work to understand Union bargaining teams actions without personalizing them. Nancy Dias Human Resources Manager City of Fremont 3300 Capitol Ave Fremont, CA ndias@fremont.gov

8 Resource List 1. California Public Employee Relations Pocket Guide to the Meyers-Milias-Brown August 2006 pg California Public Employee Relations Pocket Guide to the Meyers-Milias-Brown August 2006 pg Survey questions (see below) 4. Appendix A Ground Rules (see below) SURVEY QUESTIONS Survey Questions sent to Labor experts. 1. Please describe a time when your negotiations with a labor union was successful. What was the scenario? What made it successful? What was the union/management relationship before, during and after these negotiations? 2. Please describe a time when your negotiations with a labor union was not successful. What was the scenario? What made it unsuccessful? What was the union/management relationship before, during and after these negotiations. 3. Have you ever been completely surprised or caught off guard by a labor groups reaction to a problem or proposal you were working on? If so, can you describe the scenario and their reaction? Also, please describe if you know where the reaction came from and what you did to overcome the reaction and move forward. 4. Finally, please describe a time when you have been forced to move forward from difficult negotiations to implement a contractual item. I would like to learn about a heated table discussion or some type of Labor action that was taken. What was your strategy for moving forward after the action? How did you begin to rebuild the Labor/Management relationship? 8

9 Appendix A 9

10 10