COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND CIVIL SERVICE - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, December 10, 1997 2:05 p.m. - - - RES. 970054 - Authorizing the Committee on Labor and Civil Service to conduct hearings into the impasse between the City Administration and the employees of the Register of Wills concerning their lack of adequate pay raises in the last negotiated city employees contract. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X RESOLUTION 970054 William B. Grab, Direct, Labor Relations, City of Philadelphia------------------------- Stephanie Franklin-Suber, Solicitor, City of Philadelphia--------------------------------- 14 Steven Sannini, Employee, Office of Register of Wills---------------------------------------- 36 Frank Stahl, Employee, Sheriff's Office--------- 72 Arnold Mitchell, Employee, Office of Register of Wills---------------------------------------- 85 James Tangert, Employee, Office of Register of Wills---------------------------------------- 87 - - - 3 RESOLUTION 970054 CHAIRMAN MARIANO: A quorum is present for the Committee on Labor and Civil Service. We will now come to order. For the record, please note that Councilman Cohen, Councilman Ortiz, Councilwoman Krajewski, and I am the Chairman, Councilman Mariano, are present. Mr. Edward Caroline, who is the clerk. And the first resolution is Resolution No. 970054. Will the clerk please read the resolution.
Resolution authorizing the Committee on Labor and Civil Service to conduct hearings into the impasse between the City Administration and the employees of the Register of Wills concerning their lack of adequate pay raises in the last negotiated city employees contract. Whereas, due to decisions made by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the employees of the Register of Wills have been placed in a bargaining unit with the Fraternal Order of Police. And whereas, this inclusion of the 4 RESOLUTION 970054 employees of the Register of Wills in this bargaining group is inappropriate, since these employees never requested to be included in this group, union cards were never executed, no dues have ever been paid, and the Fraternal Order of Police has no real desire to represent these employees. And whereas, the obvious and harmful effect of the employees of the Register of Wills being included in this group is that they have been deprived of any salary increases for a considerable period of time. And whereas, other city employees, who render similar services to those performed by the Register of Wills' work force, have received salary increases as a result of the last two contracts negotiated with the City of Philadelphia, while employees of the Register of Wills have not received any raises. And whereas, the employees of the Register of Wills provide excellent services to the general public and the legal community on a daily basis. These loyal and hard-working employees deserve to have this problem addressed 5 RESOLUTION 970054 immediately so they may begin to receive just wages for the excellent services which they provide. Now, therefore, resolved by the Council of the City of Philadelphia that we authorize the Committee on Labor and Civil Services to conduct hearings into the impasse between the City Administration and the employees of the Register of Wills concerning their lack of adequate pay raises in the last negotiated city employees' contract. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Is there anyone here to testify on this Resolution 970054? We will take the Administration first. Could you state your name, for the record.
William Grab, G-R-A-B. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Mr. Grab, what do you do?
I am the Director of Labor Relations for the City of Philadelphia. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: You are?
Yes. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: I never saw you. 6 RESOLUTION 970054 That's great. Thank you. Her, I have seen.
Stephanie Franklin-Suber, City Solicitor. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Thank you. Mr. Grab.
Good afternoon. I am William B. Grab, Director of Labor Relations. I am here today to provide testimony on Resolution 10 970054, and to answer any questions you may have. The Deputy Sheriff/Register of Wills bargaining unit was established by the PRB. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: The mikes are actually older than Councilman Cohen, and he is 39 years old.
If I may start again. The Deputy Sheriff/Register of Wills bargaining unit was established by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in 1984. This followed a January 1980 City Council ordinance exempting deputy sheriffs from the District Council 33 bargaining unit. The PRB certified the Deputy Sheriff/Register of Wills bargaining unit based on a precedent that is used in other counties of grouping 7 RESOLUTION 970054 row offices together. Employees were given an opportunity to vote on representation by the FOP, and a majority of those voting at the time voted for representation. The city's four other major collective bargaining units are the Fraternal Order of Police; FOP Lodge 5, representing the uniformed and investigatory employees of the police department; the IAFF Local 22, representing uniformed firefighting and paramedic service; AFSCME District Council 33, representing the non-uniformed Civil Service employees; and AFSCME District Council 47, representing the professional non-uniformed Civil Service employees. In order to understand today's issue, it must be looked at in a historic perspective and in relationship with the city's other bargaining units. In July 1992, the collective bargaining agreements expired for all of the city's unions. These were the first negotiations under the PICA legislation. The city was on the verge of bankruptcy, negotiations were protracted and 8 RESOLUTION 970054 extremely difficult, but ultimately resulted in a new contract for the four major unions. These contracts included many provisions which enabled the city to operate more efficiently and cost effectively. Included are management rights clauses, contracting-out clauses, health and welfare reforms, disability reforms, flexibility and changing work hours, reduced sick leave for new hires, and reduced holidays. These contracts enabled the city to generate savings which helped pay for the cost of the wage increases provided in them. Unlike other major cities, employees were not laid off. In 1996, the four major bargaining units again engaged in negotiations which resulted in contracts which maintained the reforms from 1992. The collective bargaining agreement for the Deputy Sheriff/Register of Wills also expired in 1992. Negotiations commenced in '92, and resumed in '94 after a change in leadership in the FOP. The parties were not able to reach agreement. During the entire negotiation 9 RESOLUTION 970054 process, the city's goal has been the pattern established by the four major settlements. Litigation over the negotiations found that the FOP had missed the statutory timetable for demanding arbitration for the period 1992.
We handed it in. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Sergeant At Arms, do we have that testimony? Do we have his testimony?
Because I know that you are going through a history of the process established. I don't think we have your testimony. I just want to find out the basic fact of the resolution, and get down to it. Because we can get into this. And I think this is an issue of, really, fairness that 10 RESOLUTION 970054 we're trying to discuss. And I want to go into the nitty-gritty of the issue, which is, have these workers been denied, when other workers in the city, throughout the last six years, have gotten raises? Have these workers been denied the same raise at the appropriate time?
In March of this year we had interest arbitration hearings, and in July of this year --
Since 1992, these workers have not received any raises.
They have received 11 RESOLUTION 970054 increments within their steps. They have received longevity increases, and those types of increases. They have received promotions, also. VOICE: No. 6 CHAIRMAN MARIANO: You will get your chance, believe me.
You will get your chance. Please. When the last contract was approved for District 33, District 47, the FOP, and the fire workers' union, they all received raises, right, those four groupings of folks?
All right. Could you answer me, what was the percentage of the raise that is going to take place 12 RESOLUTION 970054 on Monday?
What is the percent of interest that is going to take place for the police and fireworkers' union?
4 percent. These workers are not going to receive a percent raise nor a percent raise; right? These workers that we are discussing here.
I am asking a yes or no. Are they going to receive a raise or not, a percent or percent raise?
There is an interest arbitration award which provides for it, which the FOP currently has on appeal.
The interest arbitration that you have, that's the reason that 13 RESOLUTION 970054 has prevented you from giving these workers raises since 1992?
Does the arbitration issue prevent you from giving raises to these workers?
From '92 to '96, the FOP missed its statutory timetable for going to interest arbitration.
We have gone to interest arbitration. We do have an award. The award has not been implemented because it is under appeal by the Fraternal Order of Police.
But that is the reason why the Administration has not given these workers raises during that period of time?
And what does the city expect to get from this arbitration?
We have the arbitration award. And the arbitration award catches them up to 14 RESOLUTION 970054 the other city employees.
It gives them a 5 percent -- it gives them a 1 percent increase, it gives them a 5 percent increase retroactive to April 1 of this year, it gives them --
No. 11 The lump sum is to catch them up with the retroactive. And the 5 percent is to catch them up to those that are in the '92 -- increases in the '92 contract were percent and percent.
Not back to it. There is a lump sum which is to catch them up with the retroactive.
Testimony was distributed yesterday to members of 15 RESOLUTION 970054 Council. Mr. Grab's testimony is there.
The issue here is one question, and that's the answer that we need to get. Why these workers have not gotten a raise, and when are they going to get it. And I think that's what they are interested in and that's what we are interested in. When are these workers going to get their raise and to when is that raise retroactive? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Is that one of the exhibits? Do you know what exhibit?
We want the Administration to give a clear answer to those two questions. You give a clear answer to those two questions, I think they will be satisfied, we will be satisfied, and the hearing can be over. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Do any other Councilmembers have any questions? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilman Cohen.
The city has not implemented the arbitration award because it is 16 RESOLUTION 970054 under appeal by the FOP. It has been heard by the Commonwealth Court. And their appeal was denied, and they have then taken that on to -- to Common Pleas Court, and they have taken that on to Commonwealth Court. And it remains on appeal to Commonwealth Court. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Can you explain this to me like I am 6 years old? Because I really think that there is a lot being lost here. These people are in a union that they don't want to be in, that the union doesn't want to represent them. And they won an award, they won a contract that they negotiated, and they are not getting the money for four or five years? And unless I hear something from the FOP, the FOP doesn't want them, but they appealed this arbitration so they don't get their money? Do I have that right?
I cannot speak for the FOP. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: I don't want you to speak for the city. I just want you to let me know if my uneducated mind can suppose this. Help 17 RESOLUTION 970054 me. Help me. You went to law school, probably. Help me.
I do not know that the FOP does not want these employees. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Okay. Well, take that out. Let's say the FOP appealed --
Has appealed this award. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: And they are not getting their money because the FOP appealed.
And the city is not implementing while the appeal is in place. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Why do we play games with people's lives? Is there a reason for that? (Applause.) CHAIRMAN MARIANO: We don't have to clap. This is your forum. We need to know. We need to find out. Fortunately, this is my committee, it is your committee. They are going to speak, and we are going to hear this. But I am tired of this stuff with the city. And I talked to the Mayor, I talked 18 RESOLUTION 970054 to Greg Rost. And everybody wants to help everybody. But make it easy for us that didn't attend law school. Make it easy on us.
I am not an attorney. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Is there a reason? I mean, do we need to talk to somebody? Is there somebody? I mean, I know all these people. They all have families. A couple of them are my friends. I mean, a lot of them are my friends, but some of them I socialize with. And they never tell me about this. On the sly they tell me, "Councilman, just give us our hearing." They didn't say to make sure anything happens, just give us our hearing. Because it seems so simple from somebody that's not involved in the process. Ms. Frankin-Suber, can you help us on that? State your name for the record.
Yes. Stephanie Franklin-Suber, and I am the City Solicitor. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Thank you.
Formal testimony was distributed to members of Council. And it goes 19 RESOLUTION 970054 into more detail of the proceedings. I won't do that now. I will just try to highlight why from a legal standpoint we have not implemented the provisions of the 1997 arbitration award. As Mr. Grab said, that award was issued in July of '97. The city did not appeal; the FOP appealed. They appealed the award to the Court of Common Pleas.
What was the basis of the appeal? Do we have anybody from the FOP here?
I can give you background that's in testimony that is a matter of public record. The award contains provisions that are favorable to the union and favorable to the city. The FOP challenged only the provisions that were favorable to the city as employer, almost all of the management reform provisions. Specifically, the FOP tried to vacate management rights provisions, service-connected 20 RESOLUTION 970054 disability, work schedules, contracting out, performing duties of an equivalent or lower class level, and transfers. And, basically, all these provisions allow the city as an employer to function more efficiently and cost effectively. The FOP asserted that these provisions should be vacated because they weren't supported by substantial evidence. Now, the city responded in opposition. We argued a variety of different defenses. The bottom line was, the Court of Common Pleas, at that level, denied the FOP's petition to vacate the arbitration award. In the opinion -- and I think it is relevant to the points that you are raising here -- in the opinion, the Court said the city presented ample evidence that supported the findings of the arbitrators on all the items that the FOP challenged. Again, the FOP appealed only those parts of the award that were favorable to the city as the employer. 21 RESOLUTION 970054 And the arbitrators concluded that the FOP failed to present law or arguments sufficient to persuade the court the award should be vacated. Subsequently, the FOP appealed to Commonwealth Court. That appeal is pending.
I have a decision here. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: He went to law school.
I have a decision that was submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, arbitrations award, by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. Is this the order that the FOP appealed?
Well, this one, I will read you the conclusions, and you tell me why these things have not happened. It says, "Hereby orders and directs that the city shall cease and desist from 22 RESOLUTION 970054 interfering or restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guarantees in Article 4 of the Act; cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the employee organization, which is the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate unit; take the following affirmative action: Implement the April 1, 1997, pay increase and bonus provisions of the award by paying employees the amounts due them under those provisions with interest at the simple rate of 6 percent annum from July 3, 1997, up to the date of the payment. "Post a copy of this decision and Order within five days of the effective date herein in a conspicuous place, readily accessible to its employees, and have the same remain posted for a period of ten consecutive days. "And furnish to the Board within 20 days of the date hereof satisfactory evidence of compliance with this decision, an Order by completion, and filing of the attached Affidavit of Compliance." CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilman Ortiz, would you read for the record where you read that 23 RESOLUTION 970054 from.
That is the decision of the hearing examiner. That is Exhibit D to my testimony.
That's correct. And to put that decision into context, I referred to the fact there were parallel proceedings. After the appeal of the FOP to Commonwealth Court, and because the city did not at that point implement the unchallenged provisions of the award -- in other words, the provisions favorable to the union -- the FOP then filed an unfair labor practice against the city before the PLRB. And you are absolutely correct, Councilman Ortiz. A hearing examiner concluded that the city committed an unfair labor practice. The city believes, and we have taken the position legally, and we have appealed that decision, that the decision of the hearing examiner 24 RESOLUTION 970054 is erroneous. We have appealed it to the full Labor Board, and that appeal is currently pending. And let me tell you in a nutshell what our position is. First of all, we believe that the interest arbitration award is an integrated whole. The provisions are interdependent; they can't be split in two. The savings provisions of the award that the FOP sought to vacate in its appeal are intertwined with the benefit provisions that they seek to implement. Let me say it a different way so that you can understand my point. The provisions that are not on appeal are the wage and benefit increases. Those are the provisions the FOP wants implemented. The provisions that are the subject of appeal are the management reform provisions that generate the savings that fund the wage and benefit increases. The logic of the PICA statute, and each of the five-year plans approved by City Council since 1992, contemplate and require that the city 25 RESOLUTION 970054 not grant wage and benefit increases without specifying how the increases are going to be funded. This strategy, we have been consistent. It is standard practice to wait until the appeal process is completed before we implement the award. There is nothing to prevent the Court from vacating the award in its entirety. And legally, frankly, we believe strongly that the unappealed provisions, the wage and benefit increases, can't be implemented. Because our view is that legally they are dependent on the appealed provisions. And, so, that's why we have appealed the decision to the PLRB. So, basically, they are parallel decisions.
So if you don't win on those issues that you are contesting, then, supposedly, according to the PICA edicts, you will not be able to pay for the wage increases that have been asked. So if you don't win, that means that the decision to increase the wages of these RESOLUTION 970054 employees will not happen because you do not have the ability to pay; is that true?
So, then, all of the workers that are represented across the city, the odd 20,000 workers, would have gotten raises from 1992 to 1997, but these workers, you have not been able to find 3 percent or 2 percent wage increases for them; is that what you are saying? Is that what you are maintaining?
That is not what we are saying. We are saying that through PICA, through the five-year plan --
It seems to me that these workers, all they need is a raise. All of the other stuff is, you know -- even in '92 and '93, when District 33 and 47 were getting the brunt and carrying the brunt of the reform on their backs, in terms of the savings that had happened, at least those workers that had not been retired or -- we didn't have layoffs; we just didn't fill positions. So we didn't have layoffs; right, 27 RESOLUTION 970054 David? We just did not fill some positions. Those workers, at least, that remained working for the city, they got increases, minor though they might have been. But these workers from 1992 to '97 haven't gotten anything at all. And you are telling me that their raise now, not retroactive to '92, is going to depend whether you are able to win the managerial and supervisory rules on your appeal, and it is going to be dependent on whether you win those things or not? So if you do win those things, they get their raise. If you don't win those things, they don't get their raise?
Well, what we are trying to do is to treat all of our bargaining units in a similar manner.
I asked a question. Did you hear me? It is a yes or no 22 answer. I asked a question.
Generally, yes, we are trying to treat all our bargaining units in the same manner, under the same pattern, so that these 28 RESOLUTION 970054 employees have the same --
But these have not been treated in the same manner. They have not gotten a raise since 1992.
From '92 to '96, the contracts were basically rollback agreements. Four holidays were taken away from District Council 33, District Council 47, the Fraternal Order of Police and the firefighters. These have not been taken away from these employees. The health and welfare benefits for 33, 47, the police and fire were reduced. They were not reduced for these employees.
These are the lucky ones, then, you are telling me? These are the lucky workers?
During that period of time, they did not participate in the sacrifices that were made by the other bargaining units.
We are trying to apply the pattern to these employees. And the arbitrator saw 29 RESOLUTION 970054 that we should apply the pattern, and the FOP has appealed it. The intent of the award, if you read the award, is to make them whole. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Let me take a little break for a minute. (Short recess.) CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilman Cohen.
Well, I have run into all kinds of experiences, but this is a brand-new one. In which a Mayor who was present at a hearing earlier today, and got cheered, I don't understand why, by a labor group, finds some new exquisite method of torturing employees by denying them these raises. (Applause.)
Councilman Ortiz says, "David, ask some questions." I find it difficult. Because when you deal with an irrational situation, it is hard to be able to ask a rational question. It is almost like we are rediscovering whether the earth is round or square, 30 RESOLUTION 970054 you know, or whether the earth revolves around the sun, or maybe it is the moon that it revolves around. I really think as far as labor situations go, this is the most outrageous situation I have ever seen in the history of Philadelphia. (Applause.)
To take a group of employees like those who are sitting in here, and who work down on the first floor, in an operation which is conceded by the top levels in the city Administration to be one of the most efficient operations that exist in the City of Philadelphia -- and the Chief of Staff of the Mayor told me that directly last week, when we were together in a different kind of a hearing. Because it has always been my feeling from my personal experience, when I practiced law privately, before I was in City Council, that the office was extremely efficient. Any time I needed information, I got it right away, didn't have to go through hassles. But I thought maybe something had happened, you know, since 1980, when I came back to Council. 31 RESOLUTION 970054 But the Chief of Staff assured me that this was one of the most efficient operations, in the Register of Wills Office, that exists anywhere among city employees. So it couldn't be that. Why don't you just do the normal, simple little thing of not punishing these people because a Court made a decision that they are uniformed employees back in 1984, and they have to have their own separate bargaining agent? The FOP doesn't represent them, doesn't want to represent them, and they don't want to be represented by the FOP. In truth, they are just like all of the other non-uniformed departments. I know it is hard to ask city government to act in a common sense fashion. I know that's probably the most difficult thing in the world to do. Just put aside all your knowledge, and just act like ordinary people and say, "Everybody else in their situation got a raise; they ought to get a raise." Now, I am not arguing that they ought to maintain benefits. I don't know whether they do 32 RESOLUTION 970054 or not. They tell me they don't keep these extra days of vacation that you said were taken away from others. But they ought to be treated just like everybody else; no better, no worse. But certainly they ought to get their wage increases, and they ought not to be waiting five or six years. You have even got the city in the embarrassing position of owing them interest now, since the last decision that Councilman Ortiz read. Didn't that decision say at 6 percent interest?
Since July 1, the city owes these workers 6 percent interest.
Councilman, can I ask, how many employees are we talking about? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilwoman Krajewski.
I don't know the exact amount. A VOICE: 252. 33 RESOLUTION 970054
Does anyone have a number? Do we have an amount? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Does the city?
There are about 215 in the sheriff's office, and about 40 in the --
-- in the bargaining unit. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: One Deputy Mayor's salary, maybe; is that it? How much?
What is the figure of the employees? Can someone just give me that figure?
As I understand it, there are about 212, 215 in the Sheriff's Office. And the bargaining unit in the Register of Wills Office is about 40 people.
Excuse me. And we don't have a figure of the amount?
Say we will go by 300. What would that figure be? Has anyone figured that out?
For fiscal Year '98, the 5 percent retroactive cost is 117,000. And the lump sum bill -- excuse me. For the Deputy Sheriffs, the lump sum bonus is 94,000.
For the wage increase, the 5 percent effective 4/1/97, is 375,000. 3 percent, effective 12/15/97, is worth 102,000.
That would be the first year of the agreement. That's attached as Exhibit E to my testimony.
We can make other copies available, as well. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: That sounds --
That includes uniform allowance that's in here and the wage increases.
I understand the amount owed to each employee is approximately $5,000; does that amount sound right? Is there anybody in the audience that has any specific knowledge? Could I ask that this gentleman come forward just on this point? Because I know I have engaged him in discussions. You have to come forward. Just borrow the microphone for a minute. Give your name, and tell us what you 36 RESOLUTION 970054 understand. Give your name, and then tell us what you understand is the amount of money due to the employees.
Councilman, my name is Steven Sannini. I am an employee with the Register of Wills Office. With regards to what the city Administration is informing this body of Councilmembers, the negotiated contract, okay, from the first arbitration award, all right, the Sheriff's Department were due to receive a $3,000 bones. The Register of Wills employees were due to receive a $1500 bonus, plus the interest per year up until the end of the award. What happened is that there was an issue inserted into the original arbitration award by the independent arbitrator which had to do with contracting out. It is more with regards to the Sheriff's Office than with us, per that's what the Administration says. However, the FOP counsel took issue with that, and they appealed that one issue. The 37 RESOLUTION 970054 city then sought to withhold the monetary issues of the award. If Council can remember that, under the Administration of Wilson Goode, a similar thing occurred with the award, with the FOP taking issue to certain provisions in the award contract. However, during the Goode Administration, the Administration of Wilson Goode did not hold up the monetary award, and paid the bonuses and wage increases while the other issues were negotiated through the court system. This Administration, however, has took the position that they intend to withhold the monetary award, use it as a negotiating chip to try to get the FOP to cave in on the provisions, and then they decided what they have decided fits them. There is also -- and I think there is a representative from the Sheriff's Department, a Frank Stahl, who is in attendance today, has indicated to me that the Administration is looking at privatization, and that the city feels that they can privatize the Criminal Justice Center with a private security firm, whichever firm that may be, and eliminate the sheriffs from that department. 38 RESOLUTION 970054 And this is also one of the reasons they are withholding the monetary award with regards to our contract.
That last item is very interesting, and very sad that it might be proposed by the Administration at this late date. But let me ask you, do you remember what year approximately in the Goode Administration?
Councilman, I really apologize. I don't have that information available. But I am sure that Council staff would have that information. The Administration of Wilson Goode, the FOP took issue with provisions again.
Second, do you know how much money is owed to the Register of Wills' employees?
The Register of Wills' employees are owed -- 39 RESOLUTION 970054
If the city paid them everything they owed them, what would they get?
I would say the $1500 bonus. Plus the wage increase, you could add another 500. Maybe 2,000 at this time, and maybe 3500 to the sheriff's as of right now.
It is roughly only, I would say, $1500 bonus, and add in another 500 with regards to the interest. And you have to back date the contract to April, when the award was given. However, I was also in attendance at an arbitration hearing at the state building. And the city's representative gave testimony that the total combined budget for the Register of Wills and sheriff was less than 1 percent of the budget. Less than percent. It is not even a full percent. 21
But unless this 22 matter gets resolved very quickly, I am going to be 23 very much interested in the budget of the Labor 24 Bureau, and maybe the Solicitor's. 25 Because I am just shocked that a 40 1 RESOLUTION 970054 group of people who, when you meet them individually, they are all very nice at this table, they are nice human beings. But how they can permit themselves to be placed in this position of squeezing other workers, whom everybody admits do an outstanding job, I just don't understand it. I would have trouble sleeping at night.
May I respond? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: The Solicitor will respond.
Thank you. Councilman Cohen, as you know I take my responsibility as City Solicitor very seriously. And I really do have to, though, correct, I think, certain misimpressions on the record. First of all, the FOP does represent, legally, this bargaining unit. And when the 1997 interest arbitration award was granted, the city was prepared to fully implement it. The city did not appeal; the FOP appealed. The FOP, on behalf of these employees, had the opportunity --
That's why I say 41 RESOLUTION 970054 Joe Smith, who none of us really knows, has the right to make the decision? It seems to me that when that happened, the responsibility of the City Solicitor's department was to figure out a way to protect the city's interest and to pay these employees every penny they were owed. And certainly you are creative enough, City Solicitor, you are creative enough to be able to come up with language that would protect the city's interests, without having to take money away from relatively low-paid workers in the city. And it seems to me that your creativity stopped at the point where it would be helpful to these workers. I think that's what your responsibility is; not to continue an old legal battle. Say, "We are going to punish you because you are part of the FOP, and they have appealed. You didn't do it, but they appealed part of the decision. We are going to make you folks over here sweat. Maybe you can make the FOP do something else." That's nonsense.
Councilman 42 RESOLUTION 970054 Cohen, that is not the approach that we have taken here. And I believe that my office has represented the interests of the city consistent with the way in which we have approached collective bargaining negotiations throughout the city with other city employees. And I do think it is important to make that point. I can appreciate your frustration.
Well, tell me what other city employees have you refused to grant increases to?
No. No. Madam Solicitor, look, I don't like to do what Councilman Ortiz felt he had to do, and I find I am having to do it. I asked a simple question. What other employees of the city today have not received the pay increase? VOICE: None. None.
Now, the Mayor's staff -- I didn't want to say it, but you have 43 RESOLUTION 970054 driven me to it. (Applause.)
These low-paid employees don't get anything, not even the measly percent and percent increases, but the Mayor's top staff gets increases of 10,000 and 20,000 a year? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilman.
I can't understand that. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Not to interrupt you, but I have to take a little control here. There are three other Councilmen in the audience. Councilman Rizzo has been here for some time. They are not on the committee, but they may have some questions. Councilman Kenney just walked in. And Councilman Nutter's light is flashing. To avoid all this, I think we know, before we get to Councilman Nutter, there is something missing here. And it seems that the FOP doesn't want to represent this bargaining unit. And you can't negotiate with them; is that what you are saying? 44 RESOLUTION 970054
We have been trying to negotiate with the FOP. We have been trying to negotiate with the FOP. The FOP appealed the initial interest arbitration award; the city did not. And to go back to the point that I made before, which is treating this situation the way that we have approached all of the other collective bargaining agreement situations, consistent with PICA and the five-year plan which Council approved, the FOP didn't appeal just one aspect of it; they appealed all of the banishment reform saving provisions. And that goes directly to the way in which the city can fund the wage and benefit increases. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilman Ortiz.
Madam Solicitor, the FOP, I think, appealed because the city was found to have used unfair labor practices. That's one of the reasons.
No. The initial appeal which started this, as I stated initially, began with the 1997 interest arbitration award. 45 RESOLUTION 970054 The FOP appealed; the city did not appeal. And as a result of having lost, the FOP, after, in the Court proceedings, then went to the PLRB and filed an unfair labor practice. So the city was prepared at the outset, after the interest arbitration award, to implement the award in its entirety. The record of the legal proceedings, the position that the city has taken, all of these are a matter of public record. And they are attached as exhibits to my formal testimony, which has been distributed to all members of Council.
May I address the Council? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: State your name again, for the record.
Steven Sannini, Register of Wills. What the City Solicitor is informing the body of Council, during Wilson Goode's tenure as Mayor -- I directed it to Councilman Cohen -- the same thing occurred with the contracts. The FOP took issue with provisions in 46 RESOLUTION 970054 the contract and appealed it. However, the Administration of Wilson Goode did not withhold the monetary award of the contract, and paid the monies due the Register of Wills and the FOP. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Hold on right there. Miss Suber, why is it they are doing that now? Just keep that thought. We need to flow here. Why are we doing that? Why is this Administration doing that, and Wilson Goode's Administration, in your opinion -- I know you are not the Mayor, or even a Deputy Mayor.
Let me repeat for the record, PICA -- CHAIRMAN MARIANO: That wasn't available then, PICA; right?
The city was on the verge of bankruptcy. Since 1992 -- this is a matter of record -- in each of the five-year plans reviewed and approved by City Council, this has been the strategy. 47 RESOLUTION 970054 We can't simply -- and that's why our legal position has been, unless we know how we are going to fund the cost side of the equation, we are not going to implement only those provisions. We have to know how they are going to be funded. That's the logic of PICA, that's the requirements of PICA, and that's in the five-year plan.
Use surpluses. I don't understand what the problem is in financing the increases. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilman Cohen.
Councilman Cohen, during the arbitration hearing with regards to the award -- not the first arbitration award, but the second one that was held in front of the examiner -- the city testified that the PICA board, all right, there was only one line in the whole report that mentioned the Register of Wills and the Sheriffs. And at that time the FOP's attorney asked the city. And the city said that we were so minor, that that's why there was only one line in the whole report with regards to our office and the sheriffs. 48 RESOLUTION 970054 And that, under the understanding of PICA, the city made the representation that we were already paid, and did not inform PICA that we were not paid as of that date.
I have known never of any decision by PICA with respect to this. I don't believe there has ever been a decision. I believe the Administration intentionally and purposely has looked for every conceivable reason to punish you by taking away your increases. And I don't understand it, because it makes absolutely no sense whatever. And I am surprised that the City Solicitor is attempting to support a discredited plan. City Solicitor, respectfully, what I suggest for you and your staff, is to figure out how to get the money to these people before Christmas, and to protect the city. (Applause.)
They have been doing fine work, and the work that they have been trained.
Let me quote to 49 RESOLUTION 970054 you what the arbitration panel itself found in this situation. "The reforms enacted in the 1992 to 1996 agreements and awards" -- and I am talking about all of the collective bargaining agreements that are currently in existence -- "have helped improve the city's financial picture enough to afford the wage increases included in the 1996 agreements. "In recognition of the intent of the PICA statute, and in an effort to bring a degree of consistency among the various collective bargaining agreements, the panel has adopted this award." And, again, I am talking about the 1997 interest arbitration award that the city believed was fair and equitable and was prepared to implement in its entirety a number of reforms similar to those agreed to and awarded in the 1992 and 1996 contracts.
I find that totally irrelevant to what we are talking about. There is no relevancy whatever to what you just read to the issue we are talking about. And, madam -- 50 RESOLUTION 970054
I think the issue we are talking about is one of parity, it is one of consistency. And at least from the city's perspective --
-- from the city's perspective, treating these employees the way that other city employees are treated. The FOP, if they want to sit down and negotiate a settlement here, I am available.
I don't like to disagree with you. But how can you say you are treating these people like you treat all other city employees, when, in response to my question are there any other city employees who have been denied these increases, you didn't come up with a single name.
Because those collective bargaining agreements are in place, they have the types of management reform provisions in place which fund the benefit and wage increases in 51 RESOLUTION 970054 those agreements, and, therefore, those employees are entitled to receive those increases. They are not subject to appeals; they are in place. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Miss Suber, a couple other Councilmen have some questions. Councilman Nutter.
May I just add one thing real fast? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Real fast.
During the hearing at the state building in front of the examiner, Richard Costello was there, the FOP union President. One of the city's representatives contacted Mr. Costello -- and this is on record in the minutes that were taken -- told Mr. Costello that if the FOP would drop the appeal, the city would then pay the money. And Costello turned around and said that, "I feel that's extortion, and I am not even going to get into that." And that's what was said by one of the city's --
He gave a definition of what was going on. 52 RESOLUTION 970054 CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilman Nutter, your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This issue, obviously, has been going on for some time. And a number of my colleagues -- specifically, as I recall, the Chairman, Councilman Mariano, and I seem to recall Councilman Kenney at another point in time -- there have been resolutions introduced to try to deal with this issue. I clearly do not come to this as an expert in labor law or the functioning of unions, so I need to ask some basic questions. The one thing I have never been able to understand, and no one has ever explained to me, and it is mentioned in both Miss Suber's testimony and Mr. Grab's, how did these employees and this combination of Deputy Sheriffs and Register of Wills employees, who seem to, at some level, possibly have nothing to do with each other, how do they end up in the FOP? Your testimony talks about 1980 amendment, amendment to a '61 ordinance. Can you very relatively quickly 53 RESOLUTION 970054 explain how these employees ended up where they are today in the first place?
The employees bargained first under Act 195, or the Public Employees Relations Act of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, in the counties throughout the state, have put together what -- they like to put together what's called wall-to-wall units, broad units. One of the units that they have is called the row offices, which would be like the District Attorney, the Register of Wills, the Sheriff, the Controller. In the counties they would have one union to represent that group. In Philadelphia, the District Attorney's employees, other than the District Attorneys and the Deputy District Attorneys, are Civil Service and are represented by District Council 33. The same thing happens in the Controller's Office and in the Clerk of Quarter Sessions. So what you are left with is a --
Hold on for a second. 54 RESOLUTION 970054 They are considered row offices?
They are Civil Service employees, and are represented by District Council 33, in accordance with the 1961 ordinance of Council.
What's the status of the Deputy Sheriffs and Register of Will employees?
Deputy Sheriffs were covered until 1980, when Council removed them from the 1961 ordinance. The Register of Will employees who are not Civil Service, were not covered by the '61 ordinance.
The PLRB grouped them. Then the FOP petitioned to represent the group, the bargaining unit.
Yes. There is a petition filed by the FOP. The Board then has hearings to determine what's appropriate bargaining --
Do the affected people have any involvement? The people that are affected by the petition, can the employees say, yes, I want to be in, no, I don't? Do they take a vote?
They had an election. The short answer is that they had an election.
Cards must be signed, and an election is held. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Excuse me. Can't they decertify them?
Well, I am walking him down the path. I am flowing here. I am in a zone right now. Just let me deal with the guy here. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Forgive me. 56 RESOLUTION 970054
That's all right. Go ahead. So they are in there. They vote, they are in. FOP asked to represent them.
Yes. And there was an election, and a majority of those voting voted for.
Then the Board certifies them as exclusive representatives for the employees as defined by the bargaining unit.
But why do I get the impression now they are not representing them, or don't want to represent them?
They are certainly representing them vigorously in the legal proceedings.
Yes, they are. It is the FOP that appealed the 1997 interest arbitration award, which the city was fully prepared to implement. We believed it was fair and equitable. And had the FOP accepted it at that 57 RESOLUTION 970054 point, these employees would have their increases.
But now we get into what appears to be a two-tiered issue? They didn't like the management reform component of the '97 award -- MS. FRANKLIN-SUBER correct.
-- which apparently is the subject of the appeal. They did not appeal the monetary?
That's correct. They appealed all of the provisions that were favorable to management and the provisions which, through savings, fund the wage and benefit increases.
But then explain to me, why is it -- I thought our understanding was that the employees have not received the raise since '92? What happened to the '92 contracts and the '96 contracts?
We are talking about -- first of all, there is a '96 award. And that's what we were talking about the implementation. 58 RESOLUTION 970054 The period of time from '92 through '96 was a period when we began negotiations with the FOP.
I read that in your testimony. So '96 you negotiate a contract.
'96 we get the interest arbitration award. Well, July of '97 the '96 award comes out.
Okay. All right. So what do the employees have to do if they want to get out of the FOP?
They would have to go through decertification through the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.
Okay. And when I came in, I believe the question was on the table from a couple of my colleagues about, what amount of money are we talking about here?
Can we approach and bring you? Would you like a copy?
How much would that be per employee, using a base of 300 as the number of employees?
It is about $4,000. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: 212 with the Sheriff's Department and the Register of Wills.
The bargaining unit of the Register of Wills is defined as the clerical employees of the Register of Wills. And I believe -- and nonsupervisory clericals. I believe the bargaining unit would be about 40 of those 70 employees.
That's incorrect. At the time that the vote was taken 60 RESOLUTION 970054 during the tenure of Thomas Leonard, okay, there were 40. However, now there are probably roughly, I would say, 65 to 70. See, the city is giving you facts based on when the initial vote took place during the tenure of Tom Leonard. What's relevant today is 70 employees, not 42.
There are 70 employees in the Register of Wills. We are not arguing about the number in the Register of Wills. Correct? The bargaining unit, as it is defined for the Register of Wills, is restricted to clerks, clerical employees, secretary employees, custodian, custodian supervisors, bookkeepers, cashier bookkeepers in the Register of Wills, and excludes professional management-level employees, supervisors, first-level supervisors, confidentials, and guards as defined by the Act. So that would not be all of 70 employees.
From that 70 employee figure, subtract 5 or 6. And that's what you have that's relevant today. 61 RESOLUTION 970054 You are giving the members what was done during, as I said, the tenure of Tom Leonard. That's not relevant today. We have 65 employees that are affected by this, and I think you should update your database.
Let me just, I think I have two last questions. I know someone was asking a followup on the money issue. Now, I know I said this earlier, and the response that came back rapidly was that the FOP is representing the employees. Is that correct? When this issue was raised before -- maybe it was just within this body, prior to this hearing -- there seemed to be some sentiment out there that there was a dispute about whether the FOP really wanted the people in the bargaining unit, because they are not police officers.
I do not -- I cannot speak 62 RESOLUTION 970054 for the FOP. I can say that the city, between the court cases, the arbitrations, the unfair practice charges, the negotiations --
And I think the point is simply, there is a distinction between the FOP's legal status as their representative, and whatever the FOP may or may not want, and how vigorously or not they may be representing the interests of these people. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Can I interrupt you for a minute? Councilman Kenney wants to make an announcement about the next hearing. Are you rescheduling the L & I hearing?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to announce that the Licenses and Inspections Committee scheduled for today at 3 o'clock will be postponed until January 29, 1998, at 10:00 a.m. in this chamber. 63 RESOLUTION 970054 Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Sorry for that interruption. Councilman Nutter.
Okay. That's fine. That may be a side issue. In a conversation just a few minutes ago between myself and Councilwoman Krajewski, we have begun to explore the prospect -- Councilwoman Krajewski is the Chair of the Appropriations Committee; I am the Vice-Chair of the Appropriations Committee -- and you should just, I guess, know or be put on notice that notwithstanding where we are in our calendar, we are considering and exploring the prospect of introducing a transfer ordinance for the sum amount of the dollars involved. And I guess you can either look at the FY '98 amount of $1.3 million, or the total that you have given us here for the three fiscal years involved of $3.1 million, in order to provide additional funding to these various departments so that these people can be paid. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Councilman Rizzo. 64 RESOLUTION 970054 You are done, Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to provide some information to the committee, and also to the City Solicitor. There is an issue that I have been made aware of that concerns me. I can't even believe what I am hearing in this testimony today. But in reference to the clothing allowance, we have uniformed personnel within the Sheriff's Department that have not been given the clothing allowance, and that their holsters, their belts, their shirts are wearing out. We have got people working that aren't even properly equipped to do the job. So I am as concerned about that, as I am that we have got personnel that have belts that are ready to fall off. So I wanted to make the committee aware of that issue, and also the City Solicitor, that we have employees that are not properly equipped. 65 RESOLUTION 970054 And Councilman Nutter and Councilwoman Krajewski, you can bet I will be supportive of that transfer ordinance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Thank you, Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you for bringing that to our attention. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Anybody else have any other questions? Councilman Kenney.
Just one question I would like to make for myself as it relates to this issue. While I recognize the technical, perhaps the technical, propriety of the city's position as it relates to the appeal of the interest arbitration on management issues, it would seem to me that the bulk of that arbitration award and the issues discussed therein related more to the police department than it does to the day-to-day operations of the Register of Wills Office or, for that matter, the Sheriff. And while I recognize that the city 66 RESOLUTION 970054 may be annoyed or aggravated or angry that the FOP continues to pursue, or has pursued, argument vis-a-vis the management reforms, it is my opinion, respectfully, that it is being taken out on these two particular groups. And that's really what the crux of this hearing is about and why we have taken an interest in trying to discuss this. Because we have had private discussions. This is not something that we wanted to drag you before in a public forum to discuss. We have had private discussions ad nauseam with the Administration, with the Chief of Staff, with all the people involved in this negotiation process. And, basically, you may technically be right. And you may be able to craft an argument that says, because they have appealed this situation, we are going to play the hard line, and we are going to take this down to the end. And it is simply just an issue of fairness at this point. No one would argue -- and every time that the Register of Wills people come before Council for their budget hearings, they get glowing 67 RESOLUTION 970054 recommendations from every member of this Council about the way in which they serve the public, one of the few decent offices left where you can go in and really get personalized, understanding, sensitive service for people. These are individuals in the Register of Wills Office who have helped us all get where we are. It is one of the few last places where people who are involved in politics can work in the city, both doing a good job during the day for the taxpayer, and at night out on the streets serving their neighbors and their constituencies in our neighborhoods. (Applause.)
And that's just unfair. In my opinion, because of the issues relating to the FOP vis-a-vis the city, it is unfair. Even though they are in that particular mix, it is unfair to deny them what every other city employee has gotten. When you go to the Sheriff's Department, they cannot be political, there is not 68 RESOLUTION 970054 the ability for them to be involved in politics, for them to be serving the community in an elected political fashion. But, again, a group of people who work very hard, who are very much understaffed. We talk about the police. And many of us on this Council support the police vigorously. These people are in as much danger day-to-day transporting prisoners, dealing with the people they have to deal with. At some point in time, don't we need to get the ice water out of our veins a little bit, so to speak, and just do what's humanly correct, humanly right? I mean, in many ways unions have said to us -- and I tend to agree with them -- that the city's fiscal recovery was done on their backs. And, in many ways, I guess they are right, it probably was done on their backs. Although one could argue whether or not for years and years they had gotten more than was appropriate at the time. But from '92 forward, we all bit the bullet around here. We all did what we had to do. The city got back on its feet financially. And 69 RESOLUTION 970054 enough at some point is enough. And while the argument between the FOP that they feel is valid to go through and to appeal these management reforms, and the city's belief that they are on sound footing by fighting those reforms, isn't there some way that reasonable people could figure out a way to do what's equitable, and still maintain your position in appeal?
Councilman Kenney, let me say this to you. Because I think, if anything, I have tried as City Solicitor to convey to all members of Council that I am very sensitive to the issues and concerns that you raise. I have not been personally involved in this throughout its history. I will become personally involved in it at this point. And I do not see any reason why, based on the comments that you have made and the issues and concerns you have expressed, why we can't take the initiative and again approach the FOP to see if there is a way that we can resolve this. I also think it is important for us to communicate and discuss with the Budget Director 70 RESOLUTION 970054 the fact that you would be considering an appropriations ordinance. I have no difficulty with it. Because I appreciate your concerns with regard to fairness, and certainly the concerns and the frustration on the part of these employees. And I think that we can do that.
And let me say for the record, I view you as the city's lawyer. You are here to put forth the city's position, the Administration's position on this issue. And you shouldn't get mad at the messenger. But, in the end, they on the second floor need to understand that they won. They got all of the changes and most of the things that they asked for over the past six years that has really put the city back on its feet financially. Enough. Just figure it out. Let's figure out a way to do that. And the other issue is one that relates to the Council as a whole. We don't like fighting you guys. We don't want to have to go through this. Councilman Nutter should not have to, 71 RESOLUTION 970054 in his nice, sensitive way, threaten you guys with an appropriations ordinance with Councilwoman Krajewski. Councilman Cohen shouldn't have to get upset and get as red faced as Councilman Longstreth thinks I get when I get angry about certain things. But he is arguing something that's basic fairness. And all of us, despite our political affiliations, are all in agreement. Isn't that enough of a message to say, let's figure this out and get this done?
Yes. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Let me just echo what Councilman Kenney said. As far as the Sheriff's Department and Register of Wills, they are the two departments that can actually tell the difference between myself and Councilman DiCicco. So, in my opinion, that actually 72 RESOLUTION 970054 means they actually know what the Councilpeople look like. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN MARIANO: And I have to be fair here, as Chairman of this committee. Any other committee or any other project that I have ever worked on with this Solicitor, she has been fair. So we will give her her chance here to be fair, as Councilman Kenney asked. And my colleagues will spin their little deeds, and maybe we can put a little pressure on her bosses. Does anybody else have any questions for these witnesses from this Council? Is there anybody else that wants to testify? Anybody in the audience? This is your chance, guys, ladies. I guess you guys can hang around, if you want. Hang around. They want you to hang around. I think you better let some of them near the microphone. Do two at a time, one on each side.
Thank you. My name is Frank Stahl, from the Sheriff's Office. I am an FOP Director. I am not part of the Executive Board 73 RESOLUTION 970054 of the FOP. Councilman Ortiz, I gave you a copy of the award. What I would like to know, out of everything here, we have gone for six years. Now they said that they are going to go and try to talk to the FOP and try to fashion something. How long do we have to wait now? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: We are going to come up with -- besides the transfer ordinance, we will have something here in February. Councilman Nutter.
I appreciate the gentleman reminding me of the next line of about 15 questions I wanted to ask. 16 I mean, if we forget everything that 17 we just said a little while ago, and we are going to 18 try to be a kinder and gentler place, and we are all 19 going to try to get along, I was wondering, what is 20 the proposed timetable for just a regular settlement 21 to this whole issue? 22 I understand that everyone has the 23 right to appeal, whoever loses, and they usually 24 do. But at some point there is an end of the road. 25 You appeal as far as you can go, and then somebody 74 RESOLUTION 970054 makes a final decision, and then you really do have to kind of fish or cut bait. An appeal was just made as I recall this, I believe, by the city; is that correct?
There are two appeals pending. One, the FOP's appeal to Commonwealth Court; and then the city's appeal to the full PLRB.
I mean, obviously I am sure there is no average timetable. But, I mean, again, at some point the people in charge of the respective bodies do have to say, "We are going to hear the FOP appeal today. We are going to hear the city appeal this day," and then decisions get made. How would this all play out calendarwise?
An estimate on just the FOP's appeal to the Commonwealth Court, there is a briefing schedule. We haven't even filed briefs at this point. 75 RESOLUTION 970054 So just estimating, the earliest we would expect to receive some decision from the Commonwealth Court would be maybe February, March of 1998. So that's a pretty lengthy time.
That's very optimistic. More likely two to three years.
And I intend to see that there is a transfer ordinance introduced tomorrow. It will either be Councilman Nutter or myself or someone. But I already have staff at work on it. Separately and independently we were all thinking of the same thing. We think this situation ought not to be tolerated. I'd say the only sensible date is Christmas. I think there ought to be action taken to resolve it by Christmas. (Applause.)
And it ought to be treated with top seriousness. There is a Kvaerner project, there is a gas project, and there is this project. And I put this one first. 76 RESOLUTION 970054
We will attempt to contact the FOP as soon as the hearing is over and start discussions.
You only talked about the FOP appeal. What about the city appeal?
In terms of the appeal, PLRB appeal, the briefs were filed in October. But, again, we wouldn't expect a decision for at least several months. So, again, you are talking about an extensive period of time.
This could be a bad assumption on my part. But don't one or both of those bodies have any provisions for expedited appeal process? There must at times be emergencies that come up.
We don't think, under these circumstances, they would entertain a request for expedited consideration. We could certainly make it, but we wouldn't expect them to grant it.
That's something 77 RESOLUTION 970054 we could certainly explore.
I mean, I guess the last thing I am going to say about this -- I think we have beat this one up pretty bad -- I mean, this would certainly not be the first time -- this may be going in a different direction. We had testimony here at our last budget transfer that the police department made a decision to hire a new class of officers, I believe in March of 1993, at the salary that they anticipated was going to be the agreed-upon salary in the July '93 contract. They made a big mistake, and I still don't completely understand. I think it was change in administrations, is what caught them. And we subsequently, in the most recent transfer ordinance, ended up cleaning up that mistake. It would seem to me, under these circumstances, that it appears to be somewhat unusual and extraordinary. That giving the benefit of the doubt in the other direction may afford us an opportunity to make the financial decision now, see what happens with FOP at Commonwealth Court -- which 78 RESOLUTION 970054 I guess technically that decision could subsequently be appealed, I assume to the Supreme Court, and they would have to decide what they want to do -- we are already in front of the full PLRB. I don't know what the appeal rights are after you deal with the full PLRB. I don't know if you can then go into the courts. If you can, more time. If you can't, I guess that's the end of the rainbow. But, I mean, we could make the financial decision now, await what happens after everyone has exhausted their situations. And we are going to be in one of two situations. Either we gambled right, and the folks were going to get awarded their money anyway, and we would end up doing it retroactively anyway, or somehow, I guess, they will lose, we made the wrong decision in that case, and we will deal with it at that time. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: It sounds good to me, Councilman.
I mean, are those within the realm of reality of what could happen out of this whole situation? 79 RESOLUTION 970054 I mean, I don't know what we do if we have already given people money that subsequently a court or a labor board finds they were given erroneously. I don't know how we deal with that.
Councilman, the money is not being appealed. They agreed.
So the money, what you are saying is, give them the money.
Yes, I am. But I think I was thinking that because in someone's testimony I thought it said that one of those bodies could overturn the entire award. Did I read that somewhere?
But the city is not challenging, I hope the city is not challenging, the awarding of money; right? Or you are putting conditions on whether the money gets disbursed or not? 80 RESOLUTION 970054
What they are doing, the FOP, there are six positions. They went and filed with the money part, and now they are waiting to go before the full board. If they would withdraw that from the full board, we automatically receive our money. It is in the award that I gave you.
I thought the issue was that the city's position is, they are not willing to deal with the money, if they don't get the management reforms, which help to fund the financial benefits to the employees in the first place.
So the city's perspective is, everything is linked together. You can't get the money if we don't get the management reforms. All I am saying is, we should be able to put ourselves in a position to deal with the money now. We know that a decision is going to be made at some point in time. And it seems to me now that the sticky point would be if the award were completely 81 RESOLUTION 970054 overturned, including the money, and we have granted the employees what we thought was just and fair out of the contract that the city even agrees was appropriate, then what happens? Because then you have people having received money in an award that has now been completely overturned.
Councilman, that's only if the whole award was appealed. The whole award wasn't appealed.
I understand that. No. No. 14 I read that even though the money was not appealed, that the people who make the decision have in their power an authority to overturn the entire award, including the money. That is the issue.
So we could theoretically find ourselves in a position of having 82 RESOLUTION 970054 granted whatever it is, $3,000, $4,000, the percentage increase in all of that. We do what the Councilmembers want to do. People walk out of here in a couple of weeks or a month or whatever, they get their checks. Six months from now, two years from now, whenever the decision is made, if the deciding party overturns the entire award, we then find ourselves in the position of having given people money that they are now technically not entitled to. And the question is, what do we do about it?
Councilman Nutter, you are absolutely correct. And in terms of those proceedings, the Commonwealth Court, the Common Pleas Court, the Commonwealth Court proceedings, we believe that the FOP is not likely to prevail on appeal. And that's why we do think that that --
Well, now that you have put that on the record, I think that should give us a slightly greater comfort level to take the chance on granting the financial components of the award. 83 RESOLUTION 970054 I mean, now I am beginning to wonder whether or not you may have to have people sign some document or sign some agreement that says, you understand that you are accepting these dollars under this circumstance. And if things go completely wrong, you may have to give it back.
Councilman Nutter, I think in light of some of the other comments made, what I would propose would be to do the following in response to the issues that have been presented to us by the committee. We have to look at the effect of what you are talking about. I can't just speculate here. We would have to look at it. But I think fundamentally the most important thing that we think we should do is contact the FOP. If it is capable of an amicable resolution within a very short period of time, then we don't have to worry about those kinds of issues. We are willing to explore that. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Before Christmas still, the timetable?
As Mr. Grab 84 RESOLUTION 970054 said -- I am not sure that everyone heard him at that point -- but he said after these hearings, we will reach out to the FOP. So we have made that commitment to the committee. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Thank you.
And I was not necessarily expecting you, under the circumstances, to say exactly what you were going to do or what the city was going to do. I think, at least from my perspective, you are at least clear on the universe of things that we are talking about, anywhere from, you know, telling folks to go over to the finance department right now and pick up a check, to you could be faced with a transfer ordinance, to you should go talk to the FOP, to in a couple of weeks you could grant a check under certain circumstances. So, I mean, there are a wide variety of options. I think you know what they are. We would ask that if you want to make a phone call to the FOP this afternoon, that's fine. But in some short period of time give us at 85 RESOLUTION 970054 least a preliminary indication as to what all the options are and what their implications are.
Yes, I think we can do that. As well as seeking expedited consideration of at least the city's appeal. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Thank you. Anyone else up here? Do you have anything to say, sir?
My name is Arnold Mitchell, and I am from the Register of Wills. And I wanted to thank the Council again for having us here this afternoon. I think that what is happening here, the fact that we had to come before the Council shows that this Administration has two ways of looking at people. And that one group of people is treated a lot better than the way other ones are. And if you had a certain administrative level in the city's employ, then this Mayor feels as though you need a raise. But the people that need the raise the most haven't been given it. As I said before, all of us in the Register of Wills -- and I don't have a problem with 86 RESOLUTION 970054 the arbitration group. I don't have a problem with the FOP. I don't have a problem with them. I think that what they are doing -- and I know that them being in the same kind of position I am in, they would not be turning raises down to make an appeal if it wasn't something that they thought was definitely threatening them. And so me as a union person, I am in support of that. And I think the Register of Wills would be foolish to separate ourselves from them. I think that we should stay in that group. And I think that from the beginning to end, I am hoping that what the Council will seek to do is to pass this ordinance, get us our money, and then let them go to court. And if they want to take five years settling that part of it, let them take five years settling it. But remember that the people here are people that are working people just like yourself, and that we have families and Christmastime is coming. Thanks again. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Thank you. 87 RESOLUTION 970054 I just wanted to let you know, though, this isn't an ordinance; this is a resolution. And we come back with a recommendation. Hopefully we can work this out before we even get to that. If you have to leave, you can leave. Miss Suber has to leave. Does anybody else want to testify from the audience? CHAIRMAN MARIANO: State your name and title.
My name is Jim Tangert. I am with the Register of Wills Office. I would like to tell you, prior to my being with the Register of Wills Office, I was also with the United Steel Workers for 30 years, and negotiated contracts from 1971 up to 1991. And when Councilman Ortiz was here, he said, let's get to the point and do it fast, rather than waste some time going over a bunch of stuff. The original contract that the city gave to the Sheriff and the Register of Wills 88 RESOLUTION 970054 Office -- which I have in my possession right here. I don't know if you do -- the proposal on one issue that I would like to discuss is contracting out. The proposal that the city has given says that the Sheriff has the sole and complete discretion to contract out functions, services, locations, and sites, or in which work is presently performed by employees of the bargaining unit represented by the FOP. The award that they are supposedly talking about, the contract, which is one of the appeal items -- I don't want to read the whole thing -- but basically -- and, as you know, I am sure, because you are a union guy, you sat in on negotiations -- that interpretation is the basis of everything. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: That's why you hire and fire lawyers.
If you don't have certain words in there, boom, you are dead. Under what they gave on contracting out, no matter how much money the sheriffs got, or no matter how much money the Register of Wills got, you could contract out their jobs. They wouldn't 89 RESOLUTION 970054 have a job. And when you see what the bottom line is for the basis of the contract, reads something like $10,000 in the fiscal year, you could find anybody to do that. So to say that it is a parity with the rest of the unions is ridiculous, because the rest of the unions don't have anything in that parity. Contracting out in the 33 agreement, there will be no layoffs or demonstrations, result of the contracting out during the first two years of the collective bargaining. So they did put provisions in that agreement, so there wouldn't be anybody hurt. In this provision, there is nothing. So I can understand the FOP going and trying to fight that. Again, when I sat into the hearing, I didn't hear anything about the wages whatsoever. It was never, never brought up. Why they are holding out -- and I would like to bring something else to your attention. Because I have heard -- and I am sorry 90 RESOLUTION 970054 Councilman Nutter is not here. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: He is listening, though. He is always listening.
To bring him up to date, the first issue that the city proposed in their contract was to remove the Register of Wills from the bargaining unit within, I will say, a six-month period. Okay? Now, we heard that when we were sitting in that room. That's where to be added to of the bargaining unit has come from. It has never been that we were anti-union. Okay? And as far as getting rid of the union, decertifying, I don't want to decertify them. Because as you know and I know, if you decertify, you have to wait a whole year to get another bargaining unit in there. And the way we are being treated is the reason why there is a union. And I hope we get treated better. This is the old David and Goliath. Goliath and David. You are the stone. We hope to God 91 RESOLUTION 970054 you can take them down. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Do you have anything to say?
I would just like to respond that there are contracting-out clauses in 33 and 47 contracts, and from '92 and '96. And we have not laid people off. CHAIRMAN MARIANO: Anyone else? Well, since there is no one else to testify, we are going to convene this to the call of the Chair. Which means that I will let you know, it is my call, and we will have another hearing. But we are going to try to work it all out behind the scenes for you, okay, by Christmas. (Public Hearing adjourned at 3:30 p.m.) - - - 92 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, December 10, 1997, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND CIVIL SERVICE _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR