Council rules out proposals for a ballot measure to repeal
binding arbitration or send mediator’s decision for voter
approval
Gilroy – Public safety workers have weathered a year-long assault on binding arbitration, their strongest bargaining chip in labor negotiations.
On Friday, a proposal to uproot the dispute-resolution procedure through the ballot box failed to win majority support among a newly elected city council. In a series of informal votes, council members narrowly ruled out proposals for a ballot measure to either repeal binding arbitration or subject the decisions of an outside arbitrator to voter approval.
“We knew council wasn’t unanimous on this,” said Art Amaro, president of Fire Local #2805. “I’ve always said arbitration is a tool and it’s to be used wisely. There are differences of opinion on it, but the arbitrator has to consider the effect (of contract requests) on city finances. If he always ruled for one side, he would not have a job for very long.”
The statement underscored months of wrangling between City Hall and the fire union over the city’s ability to pay for the 36-member union’s latest contract demands. Mayor Al Pinheiro and other city leaders claim the union’s requests, if granted in full, would sink the city budget. Union officials say the city is using doomsday predictions to avoid granting them benefits already enjoyed by members of the police department.
The year-long saga between City Hall and public safety workers began early in 2005, after Fire Local #2805 and city negotiators reached impasse on a new contract. In the ensuing months, Pinheiro began pushing for a ballot measure to uproot binding arbitration, which he and other city leaders criticize as giving an outsider control over city finances.
In July, council members voted against a measure for outright repeal but supported a “compromise” that would subject arbitrator decisions to voter approval, in the event council deems those decisions harmful to the city’s financial health. But support for the proposal withered in the months leading up to the November election, as union employees complained about due process and threatened political retribution.
On Friday, with the election in the rear – view mirror, Pinheiro revived the debate to gauge the level of council support.
He and Councilman Roland Velasco continued supporting either measure in hopes of returning financial control to elected officials.
“I believe it is in the city’s best interest to eliminate binding arbitration completely,” Velasco said. “But also I understand there’s not the political will to do that. … I think what the voter model does is bring back control over finances to city council, so we can decide if we can live with the decision.”
Councilmen Dion Bracco and Craig Gartman, who received the endorsement of public safety unions on their path to winning the election, joined Russ Valiquette in voting as a block against any measure threatening binding arbitration.
Valiquette said that if the city subjects arbitrator decisions to voter approval or eliminates binding arbitration, “there’s really nothing for those two groups to fall back on” in labor negotiations.
“I would say that if this went to the ballot, it’s never going to win,” Bracco added. “Everyone’s going to be getting brochures with a fireman coming out of a burning house with a baby under his arm.”
Councilmen Peter Arellano and Paul Correa favored modifying the current system, but were at odds when it came to the best option. Arellano favored outright repeal, while Correa supported the “voter model,” preventing a majority vote on either option.
While the decision spells the end of council efforts to uproot binding arbitration, officials predicted the debate could resurface depending on the outcome of an ongoing labor impasse between the city and fire union. An outside arbitrator is now sorting out contract differences between the two sides, with the final round of hearings scheduled for early March.
“This is a self-correcting problem,” Gartman said. “If the decision of the arbitrator comes down and it’s a $2-million hit and we have to bite the bullet and cut other city services to take care of fire, you will see an outcry from the community when we have to cut all these other programs.”
Pinheiro said he did not regard the 4-3 votes against the ballot measures as a complete loss, saying that residents can start a petition drive to uproot binding arbitration if they are unhappy with the arbitrator’s decisions. At the same time, the mayor said he would not have regarded a narrow vote in favor of uprooting arbitration as a clear mandate.
“I would still not go to the voters with a 4-3 vote,” he said. “But what it doesn’t eliminate is that if a group of individuals out there wanted to (petition), they could. At least now they know where their council stands.”
Measure dies
Council split over options:
Status quo:
– Yes: Arellano, Bracco, Gartman, Valiquette
– No: Correa, Pinheiro, Velasco
Voter approval:
– Yes: Correa, Pinheiro, Velasco
– No: Arellano, Bracco, Gartman, Valiquette
Elimination:
– Yes: Arellano, Pinheiro, Velasco
– No: Bracco, Correa, Gartman, Valiquette
