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.