Laserfiche WebLink
11. ARTICLE 37 — DURATION <br />Issue: <br />The only paragraph of this Article that remains in dispute is ¶37.01. More <br />specifically, the only dispute between the parties is the expiration date of the <br />CBA, September 30, 2015, or September 30, 2016. <br />Special Magistrate's Recommendation: <br />It is recommended that the CBA expire September 30, 2016, as proposed by the <br />County. <br />County Administrator's Recommendation: <br />As of the parties' 13th bargaining session on April 16, 2014, the parties were both <br />proposing a 3 -year CBA covering Fiscal Years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, <br />and expiring on September 30, 2016. [See Exhibit Q hereto; Local 2201 11/18/13 <br />Proposal.] On May 23, 2014, on the eve of the declaration of impasse, Local <br />2201 changed its position on ¶37.01 to a 2 -year CBA covering Fiscal Years 2013- <br />14 and 2014-15 and expiring on September 30, 2015. <br />Local 2201 has offered no rationale for its change in position. And, its change in <br />position makes no sense. In this regard, if the CBA expired on September 30, <br />2015, the parties would have to begin negotiating a successor contract in mid - <br />2015, only a few months from now. In that case, the parties would not have the <br />advantage of seeing how the changes in the new CBA worked in practice before <br />having to renegotiate the CBA. Having the new CBA run until September 30, <br />2016 would give the parties the chance to fairly evaluate the new CBA, and <br />makes much more sense. <br />Accordingly, I recommend that the BCC adopt the County's proposal on ¶37.01, <br />attached hereto as Exhibit R. <br />24 <br />24 <br />