Featured Article
Chula Vista POA Negotiates Agreement to Weather the Current Economic Storm
By Stuart D. Adams, Esq. Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone
If your agency has not asked for your department or your Association to take some form of reduction in wages and benefits, and they are not planning to, consider yourself lucky. The reality all across California is that agencies are asking for cuts; deep cuts.
Some requests are coming during the course of regular collective bargaining as contracts expire. Some requests, in fact a lot of requests, are coming in the middle of contracts which mandate raises at this time rather than cutbacks. Public Safety Associations are faced with the question; do we sit down and engage in negotiations which seek to obtain cutbacks when we are in the middle of a contract?
For most agencies, the answer is you are not required to do so as most contracts do not allow for the opening of the contract. Some contracts allow for the opening of the contract in the event of an economic crisis but these typically require that the Association voluntarily agree to do so. But this truly does not answer the question.
In this economic climate there is mounting pressure on Associations to engage in these mid-contract negotiations. The pressure is the result of a very real threat of a public backlash against Public Safety if they are perceived as not doing their fair share to help agencies survive the downturn in property tax and other revenue streams.
Everywhere across California, people are standing up in local Council and Supervisor meetings and saying the same thing “we love our police, but we are on a fixed income and are losing jobs while they are getting raises.” If you do not think that this message can gain momentum, you are sadly mistaken.
For the Associations, this is a “Catch-22” situation. Associations which do not negotiate run the risk of creating a problem for all Associations as they may create a bully pulpit for those who seek to cut public safety wages and especially public safety retirement. Those Associations which do sit down and negotiate may be perceived by neighboring Associations who do not wish to negotiate cuts as weakening their position.
For those Associations who choose to negotiate, you should be very careful. There are ways to protect yourself and achieve a “win/win” resolution with your agency. Chula Vista POA is one Association which chose to sit down and negotiate in the middle of a 5 year contract. The City was seeking to bridge (from all City employees) a projected 4 million dollar deficit for fiscal year 2009 and a projected 20 million dollar deficit for fiscal year 2010. The losses were due to a severe decline in property tax and retail tax revenue.
The ensuing negotiations were a perfect example of how an Association and an agency can both work together to achieve a mutually beneficial result. The steps their POA leadership and negotiation team took are an excellent model for how this can be done.
The team, (consisting of former POA President Fred Rowbotham, current President Buddy Magor, POA Treasurer Rusty Rea, officer Stan Schwarz and lead negotiator Stuart D. Adams, Esq. of Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone) agreed to sit down with the City in December, 2008, but did so only with very clear parameters set forth in a side letter of agreement executed between the parties before the negotiations commenced.
Amongst other terms, the side letter stated most significantly that these were informal, not formal negotiation sessions and that the formal impasse procedures could not be invoked by the City. This meant that the City could not tender a last, best and final offer and then impose it after negotiations failed.
Additionally, the agreement set forth that if the negotiations went past January 1, 2009 (which they were clearly going to do) and failed, the raise due on that date would be paid retroactive to January 1, 2009. These terms created a no lose scenario for the POA to sit down with the City and try to reach a resolution.
Once the negotiations commenced, the POA raises of 3% January 1, 2009 and 4% due January 1, 2010 were on the table. The team made it clear that they were willing to defer those wages but not give them up completely. In order for this to have significant value to the City, the POA proposed that any deferral should also include a contract extension to give the City the benefit of being able to pay out the total 7% over a longer period of time.
While the City benefited from an extension because it spread out the amount it had to pay (similar to the result achieved by switching from a 15 year to a 30 year mortgage) the Association benefited by getting a longer period of time during which its other benefits would be protected as the economy remains down for the next few years.
In addition to a contract extension, the POA sought to resolve non-economic, staffing issues which had been resisted by Police Administration in previous negotiations. These were: a switch from a one year shift rotation to a six month shift rotation; and, a 4/10 work schedule for all members.
The dynamics of these negotiations gave a higher potential success rate to these proposals. As the negotiators put it, if the POA was going to suffer the hardship of cuts to promised wage increases, then the administration was going to have to put up with accepting staffing issues they opposed.
The proposals were not completely non-economic. The POA had previously negotiated a $150.00 per member, per month employee contribution to the PORAC Retiree Medical Trust. The Association proposed that the City make a contribution instead.
The negotiations concluded very quickly as negotiations go. A deal was ratified by the City and the POA by the end of January, 2009. The deal was:
1. Defer the 3% January 1, 2009 and the 4% January 1, 2010 wage increases as follows: 0% January 1, 2009; 0% July 1, 2009; 0% January 1, 2010; 1%; July 1, 2010; 1%; January 1, 2011; 1% July 1, 2011; 1.5% January 1, 2012; 1.5% July 1, 2012; 2% January 1, 2013.
2. The City is to pay $100.00 per member, per month to the PORAC RMT Commencing March 1, 2009;
3. 6 month shift rotation for all patrol personnel to be implemented July 1, 2009.
4. Establish 4/10 schedule for all sworn members July 1, 2009.
5. Increase CTO accrual cap from 100 to 120 hours;
6. Contract term July 1, 2005- June 30, 2013.
The resulting savings to the agency will range from a conservatively estimated 1.4 million dollar savings over the next year and one-half to as much as a 3.5 million dollar savings over the life of the new contract. The benefit to the Association, apart from those agreements set forth above is that they have indeed done their part to assist the City in cutting costs. President Buddy Magor put it this way: “The fiscal solvency of our City is paramount to providing for the personnel and equipment resources our Association members depend upon for their safety. This new contract will assist us in keeping Association members’ jobs and other critical resources as well as protect previously negotiated benefits which is not only a benefit to the members but also to the people of Chula Vista.” When the deal was announced in a packed City Council meeting, the public in attendance gave the Council, and the POA, a standing ovation.
Stuart D. Adams, Esq. of Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone is the firm’s chief labor attorney. He has been a PORAC Panel attorney for the last 19 years and represents Public Safety organizations throughout the State. Office: (805) 373-5900; sadams@adamsferrone.com.
