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