Gilroy’s City Council expected a broad and lengthy discussion
Monday about whether to place a repeal of binding arbitration
– a controversial union bargaining chip – on the ballot.
Gilroy’s City Council expected a broad and lengthy discussion Monday about whether to place a repeal of binding arbitration – a controversial union bargaining chip – on the ballot.
Under binding arbitration, an impartial third-party arbiter settles differences between the city and the union if either of them determine that labor negotiations are at an impasse. The practice has come under increased scrutiny by the council during the past year as the council and International Association of Fire Fighters 2805, which represents Gilroy firefighters, have endured tense negotiations and an ever-shrinking city budget.
Councilman Perry Woodward previously requested that the council talk about binding arbitration specifically for the firefighters union, but Mayor Al Pinheiro requested discussing it for both police and fire.
Monday’s discussion was set to occur amidst bitter negotiations between city officials and the firefighters union over staffing ratios and budget concessions.
“It will be interesting to hear what the people have to say,” Councilman Craig Gartman said before the meeting, which took place after deadline Monday.
Woodward announced last month that he wanted the council to consider allowing residents to vote on whether to repeal binding arbitration for firefighters. For such a measure to appear on the November ballot, the city would have to submit a resolution by Aug. 6, City Clerk Shawna Freels said.
In the past, Woodward has said he felt Local 2805 has abused binding arbitration. For instance, binding arbitration led to the mandate of four firefighters to an engine, which has contributed to the closure of the Sunrise Fire Station in western Gilroy, Woodward said. However, Gartman said binding arbitration was not to blame for the this staffing requirement, though binding arbitration did lead to the requirement of eight firefighters working at a time, he said.
Local 2805 has used the practice of binding arbitration twice since voters approved the practice locally in the late 1980s, but the Police Officers Association has never used it, Woodward said.
“Police officers have never once gone to binding arbitration in 20 years, and so it’s hard for me to justify putting that back on the ballot,” Woodward said.
On the other hand, while Pinheiro has repeatedly called for repealing binding arbitration, he said it must be done across the board and not just for firefighters.
“If we’re going to discuss it, I don’t want to preclude police being part of this discussion,” Pinheiro said Monday morning.
He stressed that the desire to repeal binding arbitration for both fire and police unions is not a new stance.
He expressed the same desire several years ago and again in August when the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce brought the idea of a ballot measure repealing the practice to the attention of the council.
At the time, the council voted 4-3 not to take action on binding arbitration, with Pinheiro, Councilwoman Cat Tucker and Councilman Bob Dillon dissenting.
Like Pinheiro, Tucker said she favors creating a ballot measure repealing binding arbitration for both fire and police.
“I’m a firm believer that it’s taxpayer money,” she said, adding that she believes taxpayers should have a right to decide whether they want the bulk of city funds going to police and fire services.
On the other hand, Councilman Dion Bracco felt that the council had to think carefully before placing binding arbitration on the ballot again.
“If we go back to voters, and voters reaffirm (binding arbitration), then we’ll really be in trouble,” Bracco said. “If we’re going to support it, we have to make sure we understand there’s a downside if the public doesn’t see it our way.”
Bracco generally favors keeping binding arbitration, though he said Monday morning that he wanted to “see where the conversation goes.”
“I think we’re dealing with employees with a sledgehammer,” Bracco said. “We’ve got to treat employees with respect and dignity.”
Gartman wondered why the subject of binding arbitration was even being discussed.
“My opinion is, if voters want to see (binding arbitration) removed, they have a process,” he said.
For instance, the Chamber of Commerce could collect 1,800 signatures to put the issue on the ballot without council support.
Meanwhile, Dillon leaned toward creating a binding arbitration ballot measure Monday morning, but he was not sure it was fair to have binding arbitration repealed for the fire union alone.
Councilman Peter Arellano could not be reached for comment.
A couple of council members wondered if the binding arbitration process could be revised. For instance, Bracco believed an arbiter should be allowed to pick parts of proposals from different parties rather than the entire package from one party or the other.
Tucker agreed.
“It’s all or nothing,” she said of the current process. “It’s not conducive to good finance or budgeting.”
Gartman wants the council to meet one-on-one with the unions rather than allowing city staff to do that for them.
Like Gartman, Local 2805 secretary and treasurer Jim Buessing wondered Monday morning why the council was looking at repealing binding arbitration. Although he did not plan to attend Monday night’s council meeting, a union representative would be on hand, he said.
Negotiations between the city and the fire union have become publicly acrimonious during the past couple of months. About $500,000 worth of concessions that Gilroy’s firefighters union approved last summer for fiscal year 2009-10 are set to expire June 30. The city and Fire Fighters Local 2805 have been discussing budget concessions for fiscal year 2011 since February and staffing ratios since November.
The city has asked the union to renew the budget concessions that firefighters agreed to this past fiscal year through fiscal year 2011. However, fire union leaders say they want to see the city’s financial situation for next fiscal year before making any agreement.
Last month, the council and city staff issued a statement that accused the fire union of using “delay tactics” and pointed out that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees already agreed to continue concessions.
In response, Local 2805 president Joshua Valverde fired back with a letter to City Administrator Tom Haglund that chastised the city for revealing closed-session discussions. It also requested a meeting between union officials and Haglund and City Human Resources Director LeeAnn McPhillips.
Buessing said that meeting has occurred, but did not offer details. Still, union representatives will continue to meet with the city to “go over ideas and possibilities,” Buessing said.
