The city’s police and fire unions appear poised to keep their
most powerful bargaining chip thanks to the city council.
The city’s police and fire unions appear poised to keep their most powerful bargaining chip thanks to the city council.
After two failed motions and a 5-2 vote to not sit down and talk with the Gilroy Police Officer Association and Fire Local 2805 about tweaking the binding arbitration process, the city council voted 4-3 to take no action regarding binding arbitration. Council members Bob Dillon, Cat Tucker and Al Pinheiro voted no, signaling their interest to continue reviewing the legal process that kicks in during impasses and involves a third-party arbiter. That arbiter, who is not elected, resolves stalled talks between the city and the two public safety unions, both of which cannot legally strike.
The vote is a buoy for the POA and Local 2805, both of which just emerged from rancorous contract fights that cut wages to save jobs. The vote is a challenge, however, for the Chamber of Commerce, which requested the council force a ballot measure in May. Now, forcing a measure will require 1,800 signatures.
The Chamber, led by President and CEO Susan Valenta, who sat in the audience Monday night but did not speak, has claimed binding arbitration “turned over important financial decision making about labor contracts to a third party as opposed to having the elected city council make the determination,” according to a memo City Administrator Tom Haglund wrote.
POA President Mitch Madruga, who was absent Monday night, and Local 2805 Spokesperson Jim Buessing, who briefly addressed the council, have described the Chamber’s campaign as irrelevant flame-fanning, meant to play on people’s financial fears.
“Arbitration is a tool. It’s a tool in the box,” Buessing said during his very brief remarks. Local 2805 successfully employed binding arbitration in 2000 and 2005, when an arbiter rewarded the union with raises more than twice what the council proposed. The police union has never used binding arbitration.
The two times arbitration occurred and the potential it could happen again bother Mayor Al Pinheiro, who has argued that the dispute-resolution procedure gives an outsider control over the city’s faltering finances. Firefighters and police officers, however, see arbitration as their only real bargaining chip without the ability to picket.
In a sort-of compromise, Councilman Perry Woodward made a failed motion to meet only with Local 2805 about the council’s intent to place binding arbitration on the ballot.
“I don’t want to block the voters from voting, but for 20 years the police have never used this tool … so it’s hard to say that somehow it’s been abused by that union,” Woodward said.
Arellano made the other failed motion, which was essentially the same motion Pinheiro made minutes later – and only they supported that motion – to meet with both unions to discuss modifying the arbitration process. During the process, city and union representatives meet with an arbiter – historically a Palo Alto-based lawyer – who looks at each unresolved contract issue and picks one of two sides’ final offers. Mutual agreements are allowed thereafter, but the final decision is binding.
Gilroy residents voted to add an arbitration amendment to the city’s charter in 1988, and rescinding that language would require another vote. Placing binding arbitration on the ballot would cost $10,000 in attorneys’ fees and an additional $50,000 to place it on a general election ballot, $75,000 on a primary ballot, or $425,000 for a special stand-alone election that only Gilroyans would vote in.
If voters were to rescind binding arbitration, police and firefighters would lose the ability to call in a third arbiter. However, even this is a new privilege for voters. Before one month ago, a state law, SB 440, required binding arbitration for public safety employees throughout the state – which was a moot point here since voters passed it in 1988. The state Court of Appeals struck that law down this year, and the California Supreme Court has declined to review the matter.
While this strips firefighters and cops in most cities of binding arbitration, Gilroy’s public safety unions can still invoke the process because they work in one of the state’s 112 charter cities. Of those cities, at least 22, including Gilroy, have binding arbitration provisions in their voter-approved charters.
