Laserfiche WebLink
make those calculations at that time. ... these calculations were not done as part of, um, the <br /> negotiations."). See also Tr. 82: <br /> Detective Bartuccelli: Well, when he [Mr. Harpring] came back and he -- when <br /> they spoke, they said that the proposals -- both proposals <br /> were not unreasonable,that they just didn't want to give it to <br /> us.No reasoning for it. <br /> Burton: Okay. They didn't state anything about it being, you know, money or <br /> budget or anything like that? <br /> Detective Bartuccelli: Not at all. <br /> Lastly, as will be outlined below, the Sheriff's final proposal does not include retroactive <br /> pay; the lack thereof would more than cover any additional cost of Union Counter Proposal Two. <br /> Union Counter Proposal Two would accomplish the vast majority of the Union's goals, while <br /> achieving the desired parity of wages increases within the bargaining unit. Additionally, Union <br /> Counter Proposal Two would accomplish the Sheriffs goal or increasing starting pay with no <br /> financial burden on the Sheriffs Office. <br /> VI. SHERIFF'S FINAL OFFER <br /> Following the August 13, 2018 bargaining session, the Sheriff rejected both counter <br /> proposals by the Union. Tr.16. At that time (and at no time subsequent) did the Sheriff or his <br /> representatives cite cost or budget for the basis of the rejection. See supra, Tr. 13, 72-73, 82. The <br /> Sheriffs representatives simply advised that the Sheriff was not willing to agree to the proposal(s). <br /> Id. This sentiment has echoed throughout the impasse process. <br /> Therefore, as the Sheriffs August 13, 2018 proposal was the Sheriffs "last/ best" offer, <br /> the Union sent the proposal to the bargaining unit for a ratification vote. Tr. 17. The bargaining <br /> unit soundly rejected the proposal on the basis that it offered disproportionate wage increases and <br /> 6 <br /> 23 <br />