Councilmen unanimously agreed not to place binding arbitration
on the ballot this fall in order to run proposed changes through
the normal negotiation process, a move aimed at deflecting a
potential lawsuit from the city’s public safety unions.
Gilroy – Councilmen unanimously agreed not to place binding arbitration on the ballot this fall in order to run proposed changes through the normal negotiation process, a move aimed at deflecting a potential lawsuit from the city’s public safety unions.
The decision on Thursday capped several weeks of council debate about the possibility of a ballot measure that could either repeal binding arbitration or subject arbitrator decisions to voter approval. City leaders, led by Mayor Al Pinheiro, have criticized binding arbitration for giving an outsider control over the city’s financial fate. Firefighters and police, who are prohibited by state law from striking, defend the dispute-resolution procedure as their only way to gain equal footing at the bargaining table.
The issue gained poignancy in late July when councilmen learned that a November ballot measure could affect the outcome of a current labor impasse with Fire Local #2805.
But union arguments about due process and threats of legal action appear to have cooled off the initial zeal to rush to the ballot. On Thursday night, only two city officials even spoke before a room filled with dozens of public safety workers and their families.
Reading a one-page memo outlining the city’s legal considerations, Acting City Attorney Andy Faber took issue with the fire union’s argument that any ballot measure affecting binding arbitration would first have to pass through the normal bargaining process, including binding arbitration if necessary.
While Faber disagreed with the union’s interpretation of law, he said the failure to discuss the matter in a formal setting “creates a substantial risk of legal challenge to any ballot measure adopted this evening and creates the possibility of judicial intervention in the election process.”
Based on Faber’s memo, Councilman Roland Velasco made a two-part motion to schedule meetings with local unions and to delay a vote on the ballot measure until next year.
Mayor Pinheiro, who has been the leading critic of binding arbitration, was the only other city official to speak at length.
“Today’s vote by this council shows two very important things,” Pinheiro said, reading a prepared statement. “First, that we respect and abide by the laws that we are governed under, and second that we take the city’s finances very seriously by not taking chances that will cost this city even more money in legal fees.”
While expressing gratitude to public safety workers, Pinheiro said he and other councilmen have a responsibility to consider all constituents.
“I promise you that I have no personal agenda and that I am only looking out for the city as a whole and not just a few individuals,” he said.
“I am totally disappointed in how this process works and the cards we were dealt tonight,” he added.
Others were less dismayed.
“We’ve had binding arbitration for 17 years,” said Jim Callahan, a representative of the Police Officers Association. “We’ve successfully negotiated with the city on a half dozen contracts. We haven’t resorted to any labor strikes or sick-outs. The negotiations were done in good faith.”
After five months away from the bargaining table, the city and fire union sat down Monday in hopes of resolving disputes and avoiding arbitration for the second time in five years. The union had offered to compromise on its priciest request, a retirement package local police receive that allows employees to stop work by age 50 with 90 percent of pay. The city countered with a compromise on salary requests, but refused to back down from demands that the union provide greater flexibility in scheduling. Union officials have called any proposal to change staffing levels a deal-breaker, saying it endangers firefighter lives. City officials deny it would compromise safety and insist it is a way to reduce costs.
The point has led to the second breakdown in talks, although city officials hope to resolve differences before hearings begin early next year.
In the meantime, the decision means Councilmen Bob Dillon, Craig Gartman and Charles Morales will avoid the ire of public safety unions during their fall re-election bids. All three stated their willingness to support a ballot measure giving voters final say over arbitrator decisions, prompting union threats of political retribution.
Jim Buessing, local firefighter and union official, said public safety workers would not forget about the debate come November.
“The fire union will be having an endorsement process this year, most likely with the POA again,” he said. “We do have a list of questions that we ask all the candidates. Fairness and equity at the bargaining table is going to be one of the things we ask about.”
